IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.44926 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI T. SRIPADARENU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. LATE DR. THIMMAIAH RESIDING AT SWAPNALOK APARTMENT NO.28, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD HALUSURU BANGALORE – 560 042. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE) AND:
DR. T. THIMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O. LATE DR. THIMMAIAH 2. SRI T.KENGALA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE DR. THIMMAIAH 3. SRI. T. VENKAT VARDAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE DR. THIMMAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.18/2, 3RD CROSS NANDIDURGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 046 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURAJ SAMPATH FOR SRI SAMPATH KUMAR B.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE – A NAMELY THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-6) AT BANGALORE, ORDER ON DUTY AND PENALTY IN O.S.NO.1153/2007 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.1153/2007 is grieving against the order dated 23.08.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A whereby learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected his request for impounding the subject instrument which is in the nature of family arrangement not agreeing with his contention that it required registration and stamp duty. The respondent-plaintiffs having entered Caveat through their counsel to resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the impugned order cannot be invalidated because:
a) the subject instrument dated 31.12.1986 by its very text & context is rightly held to be only a memorandum of an accomplished transaction in the nature of Family Arrangement/Settlement; such an instrument neither requires registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 nor attracts stamp duty under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 vide decision of the Apex Court in KALE & OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, (1976) 3 SCC 119;
a) the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject instrument/document creates interest in an immovable property on its own and therefore, is liable to be not admitted to evidence for want of registration is bit difficult to countenance; his reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in SITA RAM BHAMA VS. RAMVATAR BHAMA, AIR 2018 SC 3057, does not much come to his aid since it was fact-specific; and b) the last contention of the petitioner that where a transaction is brought about by a registered document regardless of compulsion of law, any alteration of such transaction can be effected only by registered instrument and not otherwise is not supported by any law or ruling.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly rejected.
However, all other contentions of the parties are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY