Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Test Signature On Unregistered Deed Allegedly Relinquishing Half Of Family Land For Rs 10.5 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application to refer Ex.D58 for signature verification, when the document was unregistered and relied on to claim rights in immovable property.

The court held

The High Court held that the trial court had not erred in rejecting the application to refer Ex.D58 for signature verification.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit, leaving in place the order rejecting I.A. No. 56, which had been made with costs of Rs.500.

01Facts

The petitioner, Defendant No. 1 in a partition suit, relied on an unregistered document marked Ex.D58, described as a relinquishment deed, to claim that the plaintiff and another plaintiff had relinquished their rights in the suit property in exchange for Rs.10,50,000.

pp. 5–7

The plaintiffs denied executing or signing it.

pp. 5–7

The petitioner applied to have Ex.D58 referred for expert verification of the signature.

pp. 5–7

The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg rejected the application, holding that the document was compulsorily registrable and could not be admitted in evidence.

pp. 5–7

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application to refer Ex.D58 for signature verification, when the document was unregistered and relied on to claim rights in immovable property.

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether expert verification of the disputed signature could assist in proving Ex.D58 despite its alleged inadmissibility for want of registration.

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 requires registration of a non-testamentary instrument that creates, declares, assigns, limits, or extinguishes a right, title, or interest in immovable property.

p. 7

Under Section 49 of that Act, a document required to be registered but not registered cannot affect the immovable property or be received as evidence of a transaction affecting it.

p. 7

The Court also referred to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and *Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad*, AIR 2018 SC 3152, concerning proof of a document’s contents and the restriction on proving an unregistered document where registration is required.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Registration Act, 1908 Section 17 Section 49

04Reasoning

Ex.D58 was the basis on which the petitioner claimed a half share in the suit property, alleging that the plaintiffs had relinquished their interests for consideration.

pp. 7–8

The Court agreed with the trial court that, because the document purported to extinguish or transfer rights in immovable property, it required registration under Section 17(1)(b).

pp. 7–8

As it was unregistered, Section 49 prevented it from being admitted to prove that transaction.

pp. 7–8

Verifying the disputed signature would therefore not overcome the document’s registration-based inadmissibility or assist the petitioner in establishing the claimed rights.

pp. 7–8