LAXMINARSAMMA Vs. N VENKATREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They assail the docket order dated 02-02-2011 by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.S. No. 1 of 2005. A document purported to be a release deed executed by one Vittal Reddy was sought to be marked by the defendants. The plaintiffs objected to the same on the ground that the document is unregistered and unstamped. After hearing the objections, the learned District Judge, placing reliance upon Venku Bai v. Faju Bai @ Rajeshwaramma, 1987 1 ALT 360] held that the document was admissible in evidence and that it was not a document which requires compulsory registration. This is the order that is assailed before me. Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants 1, 3, 8 and 12, took me through the document in question and submitted that the document purports to speak about past transactions and that such past transactions in a document do not require registration.

(2.) The document reads that it was a release deed of ancestral property. The document recites that an extent of about Ac.4-00 of land was delivered to Vittal Reddy prior to the execution of the document in question. The document further reads that the executant, viz., Vittal Reddy, was relinquishing or releasing all his rights over his share in the ancestral property.

(3.) As rightly submitted by Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this document indeed refers to past transaction but relates to the releasing of the rights as of today. It is not a partition list or a document speaking about past transactions. I consider that this document extinguished the rights of Vittal Reddy over his share of the joint family properties. Consequently, the document is liable to stamp duty as well as registration.