IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 9209 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI JAYASHEEL REDDY (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS JAYASHEEL G)

S/O K GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2. SMT. SUMITHA K W/O JAYASHEEL G AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.121, 7TH AVENUE RAINBOW, JUNNASANDRA SARAJPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 035.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI JANARDHANA G, ADV.)

AND:

Digitally signed

1. SMT. SUDHARSHINI A by NANDINI M S D/O T.M. ACHUTHAN Location: HIGH W/O V. GOPAL KUMAR COURT OF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS KARNATAKA RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR NO. 1 AM 313, 3RD CROSS KASTHURI NAGAR, EAST OF NGEF, BENGALURU - 560 043.

2. SRI T.M. ACHUTHAN S/O LATE KARUNAKARAN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.

3. SMT. AMBIKA (SINCE DECEASED)

4. SRI A. UDAY KUMAR S/O T.M. ACHUTHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOs2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1, AM-313 GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS KASTHURI NAGAR, EAST OF NGEF BENGALURU - 560 043.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJ S, ADV., FOR R-1;

SRI JAGADISH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 17/02/2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29), BENGALURU IN OS NO. 25657/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant nos.4 and 5 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.25657/2020 by the Court of Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.25657/2020 is filed by respondent no.1 herein before the jurisdictional civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of partition, separate possession, declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, contesting defendants have filed a detailed written statement opposing the said claim. During the course of plaintiff's evidence, a document styled as Memorandum of Family Settlement was sought to be marked on behalf of the plaintiff and the same was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the said document is a compulsorily registrable document as provided under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Trial Court vide order impugned had rejected the objections raised on behalf of the defendants for marking of document styled as Memorandum of Family Settlement with an observation that admissibility of document as evidence is kept open and the document is marked subject to objections. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 17.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.25657/2020, defendant nos.4 and 5 are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the document in question is a compulsorily registrable document and he has referred to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 in support of his arguments. He submits that once a document is marked even the question with regard to admissibility of the document as evidence cannot be raised. He has referred to Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act in support of his arguments. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of B. TIPPESWAMY V. GOWRAMMA - 2008(6) KAR. L.J. 552 in support of his arguments.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition and has argued in support of the impugned order.

6. The document which is said to be marked on behalf of the plaintiff is said to be a Memorandum of Family Settlement and according to defendants, the said document is a compulsorily registrable document as provided under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act. Even it is presumed that, the document in question is compulsorily registrable document, the Trial C