Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
T.D. Shivamurthy, S/o Late Dasappa - Petitioner
Versus
T.D. Chandrashekar, S/o. Late Dasappa – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11587 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 23-07-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri. Ravikumar N.R. Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, Adv.
Unregistered documents, once impounded and the requisite stamp duty and penalty paid, should be tentatively marked as exhibits. Final determination of their admissibility should be deferred until the court decides the suit on its merits to prevent evidentiary gaps and avoid unnecessary trial delays.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 34 - Admissibility of unregistered documents - Whether an unregistered document, after payment of duty and penalty upon impoundment, can be marked in evidence tentatively while deferring the decision on its admissibility to the final stage of the proceedings - It is an archaic practice to pass definitive orders on admissibility during the evidence-collecting stage, as excluding material may deprive appellate or revisional courts of the benefit of such evidence if the trial court's view is later reversed - To avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings and to accelerate trial, documents should be marked tentatively to ensure the record is complete for higher courts (Paras 4, 5, 6).
(B) Stamp Duty and Penalty - If a document is insufficiently stamped, the court is required to impound the document and levy the prescribed penalty - Once the duty and penalty are paid, the document can be marked in evidence, although its eventual admissibility is to be decided subsequently during the final determination of the suit (Paras 5.14, 5.15).
Facts of the case:
In a suit for declaration of ownership and invalidation of sale deeds, the defendant produced relinquishment deeds. These documents were impounded by the trial court, and the prescribed duty and penalty were paid by the defendant. However, the trial court refused to admit and mark the documents as evidence on the ground that they were not registered despite mandatory registration requirements under the law.
Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in refusing to mark the unregistered documents at the stage of trial. Even if a document is not registered, it should be marked as an exhibit tentatively, subject to objections regarding its admissibility, which are to be considered along with other issues at the final stage of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether an unregistered document, after the payment of stamp duty and penalty, can be tentatively marked as an exhibit in evidence despite objections regarding its mandatory registration.
Ratio Decidendi: To avoid impeding the progress of trial proceedings and to prevent the need for remanding cases to record evidence that was prematurely excluded, courts should tentatively mark documents as exhibits. The final admissibility of such unregistered documents should be adjudicated at the stage of deciding the suit on its merits.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
ORDER :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.1/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC., Tarikere (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. Heard Sri.N.R.Ravikumar N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record.
3. The respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.1/2013 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and declaration that the sale deeds executed either by the defendant No.1 or his successors in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 37 are not binding on the plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is arrayed as defendant No.1, filed a detailed written statement. After framing the issues, the defendant No.1 produced two documents styled as “Oppige Patras” in other words, relinquishment deeds, dated 06.07.1987 and 29.01.1996. The said documents were impounded by the trial Court, thereafter the duty and penalty was calculated and the defendant was directed to pay the same.
4. The records indicate that the defendant No.1 had paid the duty and penalty as ordered. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff has raised objection with regard to the admissibility of the “Oppige Patras” dated 06.07.1987 and 29.01.1996 on the ground that though the duty and penalty is paid, the instruments require mandatory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, (for short, ‘the Act’) and admittedly, the instruments are not registered, hence, they are not admissible. The trial Court upheld the objection of the plaintiff and held that the documents were refused to be admitted and marked in the evidence. In my considered view, the decision of the trial Court, at the stage of trial, on admissibility, may not be proper.
5. This Court in the case of Syed Ilyas v. Smt. Indiramma , W.P.No.7397/2021 DD:06.07.2026 at paragraph Nos.6 to 9 held as under:
“6. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 13 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL referred supra:
“13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.”
7. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMRATAN (DEAD) THR LRS. Vs. RAMKALI BAI AND ORS., Civil Appeal No.3593/25 dt. 4.3.25 has followed the decision of BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL referred supra.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.PRABHU AND OTHERS referred supra, considering the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 11 to 15, has held as under:
“11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Others reported in 2015 AIR SC
