IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No. 25833/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI K M ANANDA, S/O KATTEKODI MALLAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT KARIKE VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA HOBLI, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT. (BY SRI RANJAN KUMAR K., ADV., ) AND:
SRI K M KUSHALAPPA ...PETITIONER AGES 71 YEARS, S/O KATTEKODI MALLAPPA R/AT KARIKE VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA HOBLI, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VENKATESH R BHAGAT ADV., ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADIKERI IN O.S.NO.114/2013 VIDE ANN-D PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT TO MARK A DOCUMENT DATED 21.10.1982 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. In the said suit, the defendant set up a plea that he was in possession of a portion of the property under an Agreement of Sale dated 21.10.1982. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, counsel for the defendant confronted the Agreement of Sale dated 21.10.1982 and the witnesses admitted the signatures found on the document. At that stage, counsel for the plaintiff objected to the marking of document on the ground that the Agreement of Sale was unregistered and require registration and also put forth the contention that agreement is in violation of Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (for short, referred to as ‘the Act’). The plea was also put forth that the agreement was insufficiently stamped.
2. The Trial Court, on perusal of the document came to the conclusion that the agreement of sale dated 21.10.1982 was not compulsorily registrable as on 21.10.1982 and the same was also sufficiently stamped as provided under the Karnataka Stamp Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Agreement of sale is a void transaction since it is in contravention with the provisions of Act and hence could not have been marked.
4. In my view, the provisions of the said Act do not bar the admissibility of Agreement of Sale in evidence. In fact, in order to establish the defence, the said Agreement of Sale is required to be brought on record to enable the plaintiff to establish his contention.
5. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is affirmed. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS