Dismissed

Hanamappa Laxmappa Kanakappanavar v. Venkappa @ Adiveppa Yallappa Budihal

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2019WP/108514/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order rejecting an unregistered relinquishment deed as inadmissible evidence. The Court upheld the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for quashing of the impugned order rejecting the unregistered relinquishment deed is rejected.

Hanamappa Laxmappa Kanakappanavar Vs Venkappa @… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.108514/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANAMAPPA LAXMAPPA KANAKAPPANAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MALLAPUR P.L., TQ. MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587122.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.PATIL NANDEESH HANAMANTGOUDA, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VENKAPPA @ ADIVEPPA YALLAPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MALLAPUR P.L.,

¶12

TQ. MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587122.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN O.S.NO.121/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.03.2019 in O.S.No.121/2015 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol by which the petitioner’s request for summoning the document, i.e., unregistered relinquishment deed is rejected.

¶19

The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.121/2015 filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the course of evidence, the defendant introduced the document stated to be the relinquishment deed dated 17.08.1976 wherein it discloses that the executant received a sum of Rs.1,550/- from the second party Govindappa and had relinquished his right. When the executant relinquishes his right over the property, value of which is more

¶20

¶21

than Rs.100/-, the same requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The document introduced before the trial Court is an unregistered document and insufficiently stamped. The trial Court has rightly held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence. I find no reason to disagree with the reasons assigned by the trial Court. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

MBS/-

Hanamappa Laxmappa Kanakappanavar v. Venkappa @ Adiveppa Yallappa Budihal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamappa Laxmappa Kanakappanavar v. Venkappa @ Adiveppa Yallappa Budihal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss.Nirmala Shivanappa Naikar Vs the State of Karnataka

R.T.E.Society S Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Shri.Gomatesh Vidyapeeth Vs Chairman All India Council for

Avinash Ramachandra Hangirkar Vs Smt.Apekasha W/O. Avinash Hangirkar

Smt.Gangamma W/O Late U. Govindappa Vs U.Shankrappa S/O Late U. Thimmappa

Dr.Pavitra D/O Ravindra Alur Vs the State of Karnataka