IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.NO.28538 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) & W.P.NOS.29472-29473/2019 BETWEEN MR.TONY SINGH, S/O LATE A.BAHADHUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.44, MOSQUE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MR.MANOHARLAL BANTIA, S/O LATE H.BHAVARILAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. MR.ASHOK BANTIA, S/O LATE H.BHAVARILAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. MRS.SUSHEELA, D/O LATE H.BHAVARILAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. MR.RAJESH BANTIA, S/O LATE H.BHAVARILAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. MRS.KAVITHA, D/O LATE H.BHAVARILAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.238, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. MR.B.DAULATH SINGH, S/O LATE A.BAHADHUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 7. MRS.UMALICE.B, D/O LATE A.BAHADHUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 8. MRS.MARGARET, W/O DHAYAN SINGH, D/O LATE A.BAHADHUR SINGH, MAJOR BY AGE, RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.44, MOSQUE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
9. MRS.RADHA, D/O LATE BAHADHUR JOSEPH @ B.JASWANTH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.32, 2ND FLOOR, RATAN SINGH ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 566 005.
10. MR.SYED MAHAMOOD, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, MAJOR BY AGE, NO.44, MOSQUE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
11. MR.ANWAR BASHA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, MAJOR BY AGE, NO.1231, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 045. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.M.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DTD.10.06.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE [CCH NO.3], AT BENGALURU CITY, ON I.A.NO.1/2018, I.A.NO.2/2018 & I.A.NO.3/2018 IN O.S.NO.7802/2011, AT ANNX-'A' AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner being the 4th defendant in a declaratory suit filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein in O.S.No.7802/2011 are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 10.06.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A, whereby the learned XV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, has permitted to mark the subject documents for collateral purpose, after reopening the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order has an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the collateral purpose is not specified by the respondents in their application nor by the court in the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter since it is a well settled position of law that a document which is compulsorily registrable in law if not registered, can be pressed into evidence for collateral purpose. Therefore, impugned order cannot be faltered.
4. It would have been ideal had the concerned respondents specified in their application or the Court itself stated what that collateral purpose is. In Mulla’s commentary on The Registration Act, 13th Edition (LexisNexis) at page 348, it is stated as under:
“Collateral Purpose-Illustrations An unregistered document could always be relied upon for collateral purpose. The issue of whether a particular purpose is collateral could be decided by court even after receiving the document in evidence, Mangilal Vs. Dambarlal, AIR 2008 MP 118. Any purpose other than the purpose for which a registered document is used is collateral. Consequently, a suit for declaration of title on the basis of an unregistered sale deed cannot lie, since the document is inadmissible Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah Vs. Ch Sridhar Reddy, 2013 (1) ALT 461. No relief of injunction could be obtained on the basis of agreement of sale which is unregistered and contains a recital for delivery, by virtue of the prohibition of Section 53A of TP Act……The phrase ‘collateral purpose’ is qua the transaction and not with reference to the relief claimed in the suit. A collateral transaction must be independent of the transaction which requires no registration.”
With the above observations, these Writ Petitions stand disposed off leaving liberty to the learned trial Judge to decide whether the document in question is produced in evidence for collateral purpose.
No costs.
cbc Sd/-
JUDGE