High Court of Karnataka dismissing a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an inter-parte document comparison application due to the lack of registration of the relinquishment deed under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.106836/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B.T.KULKARNI & SRI.P.G.KULKARNI, ADVS.)
2
AND:
SIDDANAGOUDA S/O FAKKIRAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
…RESPONDENTS
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2019 DISMISSING I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.190/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAVALGUND UNDER ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court
assailing the order dated 01.02.2019 on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.190/2013 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad.
respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and other respondents are co-defendants in the suit filed for partition and separate possession. During the course of the trial, the defendants filed I.A.No.11 under Order 26 Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of CPC to refer Ex.D26 for comparing the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.D26(a) with the signature of the plaintiff before the Court.
4
Ex.D26 is the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of her brothers. It is stated that Ex.D26(b) is the signature of the husband of the plaintiff
Section 151 of CPC to refer the document to the expert for comparing the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.D26(a) with the signature of the plaintiff before the Court. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application only on the ground that the document is not admissible in evidence since it is not registered. The relinquishment deed is compulsorily registrable document if the property involved in it is worth
5
more than Rs.100/- as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. As the document is not registered, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
MBS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order rejecting an application for document comparison citing lack of registration under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioners have established any error or illegality in the rejection of the application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
ParvataGuda S/O Fakkiragouda Patil and others
Smt. Ratnavva W/O Virupakshagouda Patil and others
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
