IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.29614 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN T SAMPANGAPPA @ SAMPATH, S/O LATE CHIKKA THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/10, VASANTHARAJ BUILDING, TCP LAYOUT, ATTIBELE MAINROAD, CANDAPURA, BANGALORE. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVARAMA BHAT O, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SAKAMMA @ SOKKAMMA, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. GOWRAMMA, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4. ASWATHAMMA, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 5. AMARAVATHI, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT BIDARAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106, BANGALORE DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H R UMADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 28.06.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.5020/2017 ON THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT WHICH HAS ARISEN OUT OF ORDER DTD 03.10.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.574/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a partition and separate possession suit in O.S.No.574/2016, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 28.6.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A made by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, whereby the other ad interim order dated 3.10.2017 made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, denying injunctive relief to the petitioner, is affirmed. After service of notice, the respondent/defendants having entered appearance through their counsel resist the Writ Petition.
2. To deny the injunctive relief, both the courts below have acted upon the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 11.09.1957 whereby, the undivided interest in the family property has been arguably relinquished in favour of defendants’ father herein; this constitutes sufficient ground for upholding the impugned orders agreeing with the reasonings of the courts below; an argument to the contrary amounts to this court sitting in appeal over the orders of the courts below, which is impermissible.
3. The third reason for upholding the impugned orders below is that subject Relinquishment Deed which is dated 11.09.1957, a copy whereof is at Annexure – H is apparently more than 30 years old and therefore, those who bank upon this deed are entitled to take the advantage of presumption of validity arising under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 subject to rebuttal which the petitioner can accomplish after the trial.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the subject Relinquishment Deed comprises immovable property and therefore, it could not have fallen under the Register maintained under section 54 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not enure to his benefit inasmuch as Courts have held that the provisions of this section are directory in nature; the said Section enjoins a duty to be performed by the public officers by way of indoor management of the Registrar’s Office over which the parties to the transaction have little role to play, if not no role at all.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected.
The observations made herein above being confined to the disposal of this Writ Petition shall not in any way influence the trial and disposal of the suit.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc