UMA DEVI Vs. SHAIK HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition relates to theadmissibilitv of a document dated 6-6-1984 which is styled as " &&&>& S^dJ^tfea S5le$o3bo " (relinquishment deed) in evidence. The facts leading to the revision may be briefly stated.

(3.) The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No. 66 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Medchal, Rangareddy District. The said suit is filed by the first respondent herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property consisting of about 473 Sq. yards of site. The said property originally belonged to Asha Ramanujam, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. He sold the property to the first respondent herein under two sale deeds dated 30-7-1979 and 4-11-1981. However, some disputes arose between the parties in regard to the same. Thereupon the first respondent filed O.S. 47 of 1983 against Ramanujam for declaration of title and injunction. During the pendency of that suit, there was a compromise or settlement of the dispute on 6-6-1984. As per the said compromise, Ramanujam is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 36,300/- to the first respondent in consideration of which the first respondent relinquished all his rights in the property and agreed to withdraw the suit. As per the said settlement the suit O.S.No. 47 of 1983 was not pursued and the same was dismissed for default on 15-4-1985. The alleged settlement is stated to have been recorded in a document dated 6-6-1984 allegedly executed by the first respondent on a stamp paper. During the course of the trial of the present suit, the petitioners sought to tender the document dated 6-6-1984 in evidence. On an objection raised by the first respondent with regard to its admissibility, the lower Court, by the impugned order dated 3-12-1997, held that the said document is a relinquishment deed in respect of immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/- which is compulsorily registrable and the document is not admissible in evidence as it is not registered. Hence this revision. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the document cannot be treated as a relinquishment deed. It is only an agreement or acknowledgment evidencing the compromise arrived at between the parties, that the document by itself does not create or extinguish rights in the property and as such it is not compulsorily registrable. It is also pointed out that there is a specific recital in the document to the effect that in case Ramanujam desires to have a registered document, the first respondent shall execute and register proper conveyance as and when demanded by Ramanujam. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also made an alternative submission that the document in question does not attract Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act but it falls under Section 18 and as such registration is only optional but not compulsory.