IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 11089-11090 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.P. MANJUNATH RAO, S/O LATE GOVINDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.686, D-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
(BY SRI. G M ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.P.V.VENKATESH, S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.537, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYANANDA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.
(BY SRI. JAYARAJ GOWDA M N, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE XIX-ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.23/2011 REJECTING I.A.5 & 6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER 151 OF CPC, 1908 UNDER ANNEX-A AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the third defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.23/2011 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 16.12.2016 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned XIXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having rejected his two applications in IA Nos. 5 & 6, has refused to admit the subject document to evidence on the ground that it being compulsorily registrable is not registered.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as, the subject document which is an agreement to sell the suit property does not per se create any vested interest therein as provided in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 relevant part of which reads as under:
“A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.”
3. Then above aspect having not been adverted to by the Court below, there is an error apparent on the face of the record that has resulted into a manifest injustice to the petitioner warranting indulgence of Writ Court.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s applications having been favoured, he is permitted to produce the subject document and mark it as an exhibit from his side.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv