Muniraju v. Smt. Nanjamma

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/16131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unregistered release deed; marking of document as exhibit; collateral purpose vs main purpose; Section 17 Registration Act compulsorily registrable; Section 49 Registration Act proviso; partition suit O.S.No.259/2014 Chikkaballapura; Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC); CPC 1908; Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam 2023; Muruganandam v. Muniyandi SLP(C) No.10893/2021; R. Selvaraj v. R. Radhakrishna Pillai AIR 1976 Mad 156; duty and penalty offer; writ petition dismissed; pending I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

No collateral purpose was stated by the petitioner; the Release deed is relied upon to show that the petitioner became owner of the property by virtue of it, which is the main purpose, and therefore it cannot be considered as a collateral purpose or marked even for collateral purposes. ¶7

Muniraju Vs Smt. Nanjamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16131 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, KOTHANUR VILLAGE, NANDHI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 103

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK. CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105

¶15

SMT. CHOWDAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA, W/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KORAMANGALA VILLAGE. DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE-RURAL DISTRICT-562 164

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHIKKABALLAPURA IN O.S.NO.259/2014.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.259/2014 dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court.

¶24

2. The respondent herein has filed O.S.No.259/2014 seeking the relief of partition. In the said suit, on 24.10.2025, the petitioner herein who is the respondent in O.S.No.259/2014 filed a written statement opposing the claim of the respondent. The defendant has produced a document along with the written statement named as a Release deed dated 05.03.1970. The Trial Court on 02.12.2025 has rejected the said document to mark as exhibit on the grounds that it is inadmissible in law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned judge is contrary to the provisions of CPC, 1908 and Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam,2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was acquired by his grandmother as self-acquired property and she bequeathed her right to this petitioner by executing a “Release deed” dated 05.03.1970 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner as her grandson with love and affection relinquished all her rights to him. In the circumstances the petitioner produced the said document to adduce the evidence to show that how he acquired the land which is in question. It is stated that the order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶28

4. It is submitted that the learned judge had rejected the Release deed dated 05.03.1970 produced by the petitioner merely on the ground that it was unregistered, which is contrary to law. As it is stated that because the petitioner as a defendant produced this document as a matter of defence, this aspect was not considered by the trial Court and passed the order impugned contrary to the law and facts of the case.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muruganandam Vs.

¶32

Muniyandi arising out of SLP(c) No.10893/2021 he relied on paragraph No.9 and 11 which reads as follows:

¶33

9. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction. Section 49 reads as follows:

¶34

“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall—

¶35

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

¶36

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

¶37

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.”

¶38

11. It is also evident from the plaint that the document dated 01.01.2000 is

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

referred to and in fact a photocopy of the said document is filed along with the plaint. It is the case of the 6 appellant that the document sought to be brought on record is intended only to be used as a proof of the oral agreement of sale and that it is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be permitted to introduce the said document dated 01.01.2000. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the contents of the document and it is also open for the respondent/defendant to raise and contest the relevancy and validity of the document as are permissible in law and it is for the Trial Court to consider the submissions and pass appropriate judgment/order as it considers appropriate.

¶42

6. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner perused the order passed by the trial Court. The Trial Court has observed that admittedly the document is unregistered document. Learned counsel for defendants, during the course of marking the document has submitted that, though it is unregistered document, it can be marked for collateral purpose, and he is ready to pay duty and penalty on the said document. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the same and submitted that, it is a unregistered Release deed and the unregistered deed of

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

relinquishment is not admissible under law and document being compulsory registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it cannot be marked. The Trial Court observed that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the release deed is compulsorily registrable document, and unregistered release deed is inadmissible in evidence. Even if the duty and penalty is paid, it will not cure the defect of registration. Therefore, the said document cannot be marked on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court has perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants in

¶46

case of R. Selvaraj Vs. R. Radhakrishna Pillai Alias R.R¹

¶47

and it is observed that the case is not applicable to the facts of the case. As the document now sought to be marked is unregistered document and it requires compulsory registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and it cannot be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes. Therefore, the prayer of learned counsel for the defendants for marking the said document is rejected.

¶48

1 AIR 1976 MAD 156

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:28138 WP No. 16131 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

7. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the fact that the document is compulsorily registrable document. It is the submission that only for collateral purposes, he wants to mark this document and the trial Court has not considered the same and the trial Court ought to have marked the said document for the collateral purposes. What is the collateral purpose is not stated by the petitioner. He is relying on the Release deed for the purpose that the properties were partitioned and the release deed was executed. Properties were divided about 30 years ago, and the properties fell to her share and by virtue of the said deed the respondents are in possession of the property. When that is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the Release deed, he became the owner of the property which is the main purpose and it cannot be considered as a collateral purpose and the trial Court had rightly rejected the application and this Court finds no reasons to interfere.

¶53

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56