Plaintiffs in a partition suit challenged the Trial Court's decision to admit an unregistered 1948 family document. The High Court held it was merely a record of a prior oral partition, not itself a partition requiring registration, upheld admissibility, and dismissed the writ petition.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 49417 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
3(b) SMT. SUSHEELA W/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMIPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
5(a) HANUMAKKA W/O LATE BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VAJARAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562019.
5(b) SUSHEELA W/O THOMPE GOWDA D/O LATE BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O JADENAHALLI VILLAGE (WANDRALA) BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562019.
5(c) PRAMEELA W/O VEERABHADRAIAH, D/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NEAR TARAKARI MARKET, BBMP PARK, VISHWANIDAM POST, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-91.
5(d) MANJUNATHA S/O LATE BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VAJRAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562019.
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HONNAGANAHATTI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560030.
RESPONDENTS NO.12 AND 13 R/O NO.C-385, 5TH MAIN, D GROUP, HEVANAPALYA, SRIGANDAPALYA, BANGALORE-560091.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4, 8 TO 13,
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.5(b), 5(c) AND 5(d);
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.09.2021, RESPONDENT NOS.5(b) TO (d) ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.5(a); VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2021, COPY SERVED ON ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 IN TRIAL COURT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORD AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARAM MADE IN O.S.NO.314/2010 REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 19.02.1948 AS PER ANNEXURE - E BY HIS ORDER DATED 16.10.2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-F BY EXCERCISING THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.314/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 16.10.2017, by which the Trial Court held that the document dated 19.02.1948 produced by the defendants was admissible in evidence.
were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:41728 WP No. 49417 of 2017
contended that they are the daughters of Mr. Hanumanthaiah. They contended that their grandparents owned the land in Sy.Nos.9/19, 9/21, 14/19, 55/7, 55/11 situate at Vajarahalli, Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk. They contended that the aforesaid properties were ancestral properties in the hands of their grandfather. They contended that their grandparents had given the lands in question to the defendant No.7 for cultivation as a tenant. They contended that their father had landed a job in coffee board as attender and therefore, he was not attending to the lands in question. Taking advantage of this, their paternal uncle Mr. Gopaiah had got his name entered in the revenue records. They contended that the defendants being the children of Mr. Gopaiah sold away two portions of the said property and in order to avoid further encumbrance, the plaintiffs have sought for their half share in the suit schedule properties.
never in joint possession and were not cultivating the lands as tenants in common. They contended that after plaintiffs' father took the land in Sy.No.55/7 to his share, he had alienated the same to the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 to clear his hand loans etc., Likewise, suit item Nos.1, 2 and 5 were sold by their father in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and therefore, they contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2024:KHC:41728 WP No. 49417 of 2017
properties that fell to the share of each of the parties and an assurance was extended to Mr. Gopaiah that in the event of any dispute henceforth, the properties that were given to the share of Mr. Gopaiah shall be treated as his properties. Therefore, he contends that this document is not a partition in the true sense but was a record of consequences of oral partition between Mr. Gopaiah and Mr. Hanumanthaiah.
NC: 2024:KHC:41728 WP No. 49417 of 2017
Mr. Gopaiah and Mr. Hanumanthaiah agreed that they had divided the properties equally. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 13, this document was not a partition which warranted compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was right in holding that the document is admissible in evidence. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference.
dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a document dated 19.02.1948 recording an oral partition required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Whether the Trial Court was right in admitting the unregistered document as evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Yashodamma
Smt. Hombamma
Smt. Gopamma (reps.)
Smt. Lakshmamma
Smt. Chennamma
Sri Hanumaiah et al.
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
