T ARTHI Vs. K ANAND REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, filed this revision. She feels aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-2006 passed by the trial Court, overruling her objection as to the admissibility of an unregistered relinquishment deed.

(2.) The petitioner tiled the suit against the respondents herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The relation of the parties to the suit was not disputed. However, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner executed a relinquishment deed dated 25-5-1994, giving up her right in two items viz., land in Sy.Nos. 127/lA and 128, after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/-. They urged that the petitioner is not entitled for any share in the said items of property.

(3.) The trial Court framed necessary issues, and the trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed. During the course of evidence, on behalf of the respondents herein, the document dated 25-5-1994 was sought to be relied upon. The petitioner raised an objection as to its admissibility on the ground that it is not registered. The respondents raised a twofold plea. According to them, once the document became part of the record, when it was filed through affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, it is impermissible for the petitioner to raise an objection, in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Stamp Act'). The second was that a relinquishment deed executed by one coparcener in favour of another, does not need registration. After hearing both the parties, and by undertaking extensive discussion, the trial Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioner, and held that the document can be received in evidence.