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

4

conveyed. Therefore, by imposing a penalty of `1,000/- as

ten times of the alleged deficit duty of `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

5

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

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

7

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 XIII, Rule 6