B. NAGAPPA Vs. KATTEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.7.2015 passed in OS No.172/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hospet marked as Annexure-G rejecting the request of defendant No.1 for marking of partition deed produced at Annexure-E on the ground that the same is unregistered.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed OS No.172/2011 for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share. Defendants sought to produce unregistered partition deed so as to establish that prior partition took place. The same was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court referring to Section 49 of Indian Registration Act refused to permit petitioners to mark the said unregistered document on the ground that the same does not fall under the purview of proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in refusing to permit the petitioners/defendants to mark the unregistered partition deed as evidence of collateral purpose. The requirement of registration can be considered at the time of considering the matter on merit and not at the time of recording of evidence. In support of his submission, he placed a reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Srinivasa vs- Huchappa , 2014 2 KCCR 1605.