(1.) Both the counsel have agreed for disposal of the above Civil Revisions Petitions, as such, both the C.R.Ps. are taken up for final disposal. Both the Civil Revisions Petitions arise out of the same issue, as such, both the cases are being disposed of by a common order. The factual matrix of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Cases are as follows:
(2.) Thereafter, the revision petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit filed I.A. No. 132 of 2013 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act with a prayer to send the document dated 20.04.2004 alleged to have been executed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff to the District Registrar, Nalgonda for assessment and collection of stamp duty. The Court below dismissed the same by order dated 29.04.2013 stating that since by the order of this Court dated 22.02.2013, the document dated 20.06.2004 was held to be a relinquishment deed, and as such it is compulsorily registrable document and the same has become final. Against the same, the defendants No. 1 to 3/revision petitioners filed C.R.P. No. 3199 of 2013.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 3 submits that the document dated 20.06.2004 is only a receipt evidencing the payment of money and at the most it is a document recording past partition, as such, it is not a relinquishment deed which is not compulsorily registrable document. The Court below wrongly came to the conclusion that the document is a relinquishment deed and compulsorily registrable document. He further contends that a perusal of the document shows that it is executed recording the past partition and for the payment and no rights were relinquished by the plaintiff. The main purpose has to be seen and while recording the past transaction, it is only stated that first respondent/plaintiff received the amount and there is no relinquishment. In support of his contention, he relied upon a legal proposition Bandikatla Padmavathi v. Bandikatla Veera Brahma Chari and Others, 2013 3 ALD 249.