HALLERA DYAMMAPPA Vs. TARIHALLI KARIBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2005 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Harapanahalli. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, dated 3-6-2009 in not permitting the defendants to mark the unregistered documents during the evidence of D.W. 1 defendants filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE few facts of the case are as follows.- THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from causing obstruction and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. THE plaintiff also contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. Pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Civil Judge, the defendants have filed written statement contending that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff namely Basappa, there was family partition on 25-10- 1941. In the said partition, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Nanjappa who is the father of the first defendant and grandfather of defendants 2 and 3. Further, in the year 1977, there was a partition in the defendants' family and schedule property was allotted to the father of defendants 2 and 3. However, in the year 1999 once again there was partition between Baramappa and Nanjappa. THE plaintiff was fully aware of the said fact of partition and holding of the said property by the defendants. THErefore, the defendants contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

(3.) PER contra, Sri V. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 is mandatory in nature. Unless the document is registered, it cannot be marked as evidence. He further contended that Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 mandates that no documents should be admissible in evidence for any purpose unless it is duly stamped. Further Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act puts a complete embargo or bar against the admissibility of said documents, which are not duly stamped and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.