The admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes and the process of impoundment and penalty for inadequate stamping were central to the judgment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(I) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order passed in O.S. No. 23/2011 dated 25.11.2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami at Badami vide Annexure-C.

(II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Hon’ble court below to mark the Hakkubidugade Patra dated 1.10.1983 produced by the petitioners in O.S. No. 23/2011 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami at Badami.

(III) Issue any other writ, order or direction that are deemed proper and necessary by this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 23/2011 had been filed seeking for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit schedule ‘B’ property and alternatively for partition and separate possession of the properties.

3. In the said suit, the defendants had sought to mark a document styled as Hakkubidugade Patra dated 01.10.1983, which is in the nature of a release deed. The said document came to be impounded. The necessary stamp duty and penalty levied thereon. Subsequently, while marking the document, objections were raised by the plaintiff on the ground that the said document is a compulsorily registrable document in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) and not having been registered, the same could not be marked even for collateral purposes.

4. The trial Court accepting the said objection concluded that, by virtue of Section 49 of the Act, documents cannot be marked even for collateral purposes nor could the same be looked into.

5. Sri. P.G. Mogali, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners wants to rely upon the said document only for collateral purposes to establish possession. They do not intend to rely upon the said document to establish title or release of interest under the aforesaid release deed. Hence he submits that the petitioners would be entitled to mark the document for collateral purposes.

6. Sri. Shivaraj S. Ballolli learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 5 to 7 would however contend that the document being a release deed, is a compulsorily registrable document and the aspect of possession is not a collateral purpose, as such, it goes to the root of the matter since it is only under the release deed that the possession has been transferred. Therefore the aspect of possession in the present matter is not a collateral purpose.

7. The short question that would arise for consideration of this Court is:

“Whether a document though compulsorily registrable not having been registered, can be objected to at the time of marking during the course of evidence?”

8. There is no dispute as regards the document being unstamped or unregistered. The trial Court also finding that the said release deed was not properly stamped, by exercising powers under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1958 has impounded the same and levied penalty.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Others, 2015 AIR SCW 6184, at paragraph 18 has held as under:

“18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy, AIR 1969 A.P. 242 has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if t