Subbanna vs Muniyappa

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 11, 2026

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1544122

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1544122
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Vijaykumar a. Patil
Decided On: Mar 11, 2026
Case Number: WP/12939/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbanna

Respondent

Muniyappa

Excerpt

.....appearing forthe petitioner submits that the respondents who are the plaintiff in the suit sought to produce a document which is filed as a partition deed of 1957. during the course of evidence, the trial court without appreciating the effect of section 17 and section 49 of the registration act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “act”) allowed the markings of such documents, on the grounds that it is only for ascertain the intention of the co-parceners to become-4- divided in status, which is impermissible in law. hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.3. per contra, sri.n.s.bhat., learned counsel appearing for respondent support the impugned order of the trial court and submits that insofar as the stamp dutyon the instrument is concerned, after the impugned orderthe plaintiffs have made good with the stamp duty and the penalty. hence, there are no impediments in marking the said document, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.4. i have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record5. the respondents no.1 to 4 filed thisos no.482/2008 against the petitioner-herein and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties referred to in the plaint. the plaintiffs opposethe suit by filing a written statement. thereafter, issueswere framed. the plaintiff has produced documents dated -5- 18.05.1957 and 28.05.1997 styled as a partition deed during the recording of evidence and trial to mark the same.6. the trial court in the impugned order allowed andaccepted the documents and marked the said documents. the trial court at para 6 of the impugned order has recorded the reasons that the production and marking of the document is for the limited purpose of ascertaining the intent of co-parceners to become divided in status. thus, the documents are received in the interest of justice subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty by pw.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12939 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SUBBANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. KESHAVA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/T DHARMAPURA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU-562110 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SHWETHA 1. MUNIYAPPA RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE SONNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, KARNATAKA
2. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNITHAYAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. VENKATA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNITHAYAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. MUDDAMMA D/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, -2- RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT DHARMAPURA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
5. RATHNAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KESHAVARA VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101
6. MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
7. PILLAMMA D/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
8. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
9. AMBARISH S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
10. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
11. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 6 TO 11 ARE R/AT DHARMAPURA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N S BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R4 & R7 IS H/S; -3- VIDE ORDER DATED 3.3.2026 R2, 3, 6, 8 TO 11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER DTD.25.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.482/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed in OS No.482/2008 by Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Devanahalli.

2. Sri.Vigneshwara.U., learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the respondents who are the plaintiff in the suit sought to produce a document which is filed as a Partition Deed of 1957. During the course of evidence, the trial Court without appreciating the effect of Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) allowed the markings of such documents, on the grounds that it is only for ascertain the intention of the Co-parceners to become

-4- divided in status, which is impermissible in law. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.N.S.Bhat., learned counsel appearing for respondent support the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that insofar as the stamp duty

on the instrument is concerned, after the impugned Order

the plaintiffs have made good with the stamp duty and the penalty. Hence, there are no impediments in marking the said document, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record

5. The respondents No.1 to 4 filed this

OS No.482/2008 against the petitioner-herein and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties referred to in the plaint. The plaintiffs oppose

the suit by filing a written statement. Thereafter, issues

were framed. The plaintiff has produced documents dated -5- 18.05.1957 and 28.05.1997 styled as a partition deed during the recording of evidence and trial to mark the same.

6. The trial Court in the impugned order allowed and

accepted the documents and marked the said documents. The trial Court at para 6 of the impugned order has recorded the reasons that the production and marking of the document is for the limited purpose of ascertaining the intent of Co-parceners to become divided in status. Thus, the documents are received in the interest of justice subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty by PW No.1.

7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

penalty and duties were paid on the documents. However, it is to be noticed that the documents sought to be produced by PW are unregistered documents, styled and claimed as partition deeds. The trial Court has failed to consider the effect of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which clearly Bars from receiving any document as -6- evidence, if it is unregistered which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 subject to the proviso.

8. The case on hand does not fall under the proviso to Section 49 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is required to be interfered with. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 25.10.2021 passed in OS No.482/2008 by Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Devanahalli is set aside. iii. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court shall not come in the way of trial Court deciding the suit on merits and plaintiff is at liberty to take up all contentions available under the law. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2026 Same Parties Subbanna vs Muniyappa Same Judge Vijaykumar a. Patil