Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.
M. Surendra Rao —Petitioner
versus
M. Raveendra Rao and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.4290 of 2017 (GM-CPC)
Decided on 30.3.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Ajay Prabhu, for Sri. B.S. Sachin, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5:Sri. Shahbaaz Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: Served
IMPORTANT POINT :
Marking of documents—Mere reserving right to plaintiff to rake up the point at a later stage would not by itself entitle for exhibiting disputed document in evidence and marking it as an exhibit and getting it admitted
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIII Rule 4 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Objection to marking of documents for being it unregistered – Mere reserving right to plaintiff to rake up the point at a later stage would not by itself entitle for exhibiting disputed document in evidence and marking it as an exhibit and getting it admitted – If any such disputes arise, it is duty of Court which records evidence to then and there itself (immediately) hear on objections and to decide it regarding marking of Document and its admissibility – Merely because Trial Court has observed that plaintiff therein who objected to marking of the document can agitate his objections at a later stage in his arguments on main suit itself would not entitle the party to produce the Document and to get it marked as an Exhibit and get it admitted in evidence – As such, finding of Trial Court in its Orders quashed. (Para 12)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER
Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.—In a suit filed by the present petitioner as a plaintiff in O.S.No.411/2015, in the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), the defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in his evidence, after some deliberations, got marked a document as Ex.D-3 (Annexure F herein).
2. The present petitioner as a plaintiff therein objected to the marking of the said document, contending that the said document is a compulsorily registerable document, as such, it attracts duty and the registration. The Trial Court after hearing both side, in its order dated 04-11-2016 observed that the said document is only a family agreement and that the ownership rights are not conveyed. Therefore, by imposing a penalty of Rs.1,000/- as ten times of the alleged deficit duty of Rs.100/-, the Trial Court proceeded to permit the marking of the said document as Ex.D-3 on the next date of hearing, i.e. on 15-11-2016, however, after recording in the deposition sheet that, without prejudice to the rights and interest of the plaintiff and reserving right to him, to address his arguments at the time of main argument in the suit. Aggrieved by the said finding recorded by the Trial Court in its orders dated 04-11-2016 and 15-11-2016, the plaintiff in the Trial Court is before this Court as a petitioner.
3. Heard the arguments from both side.
4. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff) that, the document in question which is at Annexure F (marked as Ex.D-3 by the Trial Court) is in a sense not of mere reporting of the alleged settlement in the family nor a mere agreement, but it is a Relinquishment Deed, wherein the executant of the said document has relinquished his right, title and interest in the immovable property in favour of the other party in the agreement, as such, under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is a compulsorily registerable document.
In his support, he also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Amarnath Vs. Smt. Puttamma reported in ILR 1999 Kar 4634.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in his argument submitted that, the very nomenclature of the document itself would go to show that, it is a family agreement, as such, the concept of relinquishing of any right through the said document does not arise.
He also submitted that, the Trial Court has permitted the marking of the said document as an exhibit, however, reserving liberty to the plaintiff to agitate his contention regarding exhibiting of the said document at the time of the main arguments in the suit. Further, it has also collected the penalty upon the said document.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that, a reading of the said document at Annexure F would go to show that, it is nothing but a confirmation of the previous settlement that has taken place in the family in the family partition and that the present document which is a family agreement, as such, it neither creates any right, title or interest in favour of any one of the parties nor it intends to create any such thing. However, to get the said arrangements done, a consideration was paid to the executant of the said document.
In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and Another vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 847.
7. In K. Amarnath’s case (supra) with respect to admissibility and marking of a document as an Exhibit in a legal proceedings, it was observed that when a document is produced and is sought to be exhibited, the Court should decide whether it is admissible or not, and if it is admitted in evidence, it should be given an Exhibit Number after marking it, as required under Order XIII, Rule 4 of the CPC, but if it is rejected as inadmissible, an endorsement has to be made as prescribed under Order
