The petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.

No.59/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sirsi,

Sitting at Siddapur (for short, 8the Civil Court9), have

impugned the civil Court9s order dated 29.07.2020. The

Civil Court has refused to mark the agreement dated

23.01.1985 holding such document to be inadmissible

in evidence for want of registration and because of

earlier orders of this Court in R.S.A. No.5303/2010,

which is disposed of on 16.08.2013.

2.

A brief statement of facts leading to this

petition would be that the ancestors of the petitioners

and the defendants have entered into an agreement on

23.01.1985 [the subject document], and in terms of the

subject

document,

they

have

exchanged

certain

properties and have also agreed upon utilization of

Betta privileges in Betta land in Sy.No.140 and Sy.

4

No.144 of Musuvalli Village of Siddapur Taluk. Later,

the petitioners9 ancestors have commenced their suit for

permanent injunction in O.S. No.44/1994 as regards

the right to use betta privileges in the aforesaid betta

lands. Though the suit in O.S. No.44/1994 is decreed,

it

is

dismissed

in

the

regular

appeal

in

R.A.

No.37/1997. The appellate Court9s order is confirmed

by this Court with the dismissal of the second appeal in

R.S.A. No.5303/2010.

3.

This Court has found that betta privilege is a

privilege appended to specific lands and this privilege

goes with the ownership of such land. If there is any

assignment of this privilege, such assignment must be

decided by the concerned [the Betta Officer] under the

provisions of Rule 131(f) of the Karnataka Forest

Manual. Further, this Court has reserved liberty to the

petitioners9 ancestors to approach the Betta Officer for

recognition of the arrangement under the subject

5

document. The second petitioner has indeed filed

application before the aforesaid Betta Officer and the

petitioner9s application is disposed of by the order dated

27.07.2016.

4.

In the meanwhile, the respondents have filed

the present suit in O.S. No.59/2014 for permanent

injunction against interference with enjoyment of the

betta privileges in the aforesaid betta lands and also

their own lands in Sy. No.196 & 205 of Musuvalli

Village, Siddapur Taluk. The petitioners to substantiate

their defence that they have been using betta privileges

in betta lands in terms of the arrangement under the

subject document, seek leave to produce and mark this

document as an exhibit in evidence.

5.

The civil Court has rejected the petitioner9s

application referring to the exchange of certain other

properties, but without reference to the agreement as

regards the betta lands. The civil Court has opined that

6

the subject document should have been registered

under the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian

Registration Act, 1908 and cannot be permitted to be

marked even for collateral purposes. The exchanged

properties are neither the betta lands nor the lands to

which the betta privileges are appended and therefore,

not the subject matter of the dispute. In fact, it

becomes obvious on perusal of the subject document

and the impugned order that the civil Court has not

even considered that part of the subject document

which refers to the agreement as regards the usage of

the betta privilege.

6.

This agreement as regards the betta privilege

is that the petitioners9 ancestor Sri. Mahabaleshwar

Shambulinga Bhat would be entitled for the betta

privilege in Sy.No.140 and the betta privilege in

Sy.No.144 will be utilized by both the petitioners9

ancestor, Sri. Mahabaleshwar Shambulinga Bhat, and

7

the respondents9 ancestor, Sri. Ram Putta Bhat. If the

document styled as the subject document incidentally

records an arrangement as regards utilization of betta

privileges, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the document cannot be kept out from being marked as

an exhibit on the ground that it is not registered under

the provision of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This

document in the circumstances of t