Laxminarsamma & Others V. N.
Venkatreddy & Others
High Court Of Telangana
Civil Revision Petition No. 909 Of 2011
Judgment Date:
22-03-2013
Laxminarsamma & Others ..Petitioner
N. Venkatreddy & Others ..Respondent
Bench:
{HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR ; }
Citation:
2013 (4) ALD 607 ; 2013 (4) ALT 303 ;
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
(Page 1 of 2) Printed For: Aishwarya Lakhe 20-09-2021 On: 12:30:AM
Laxminarsamma & Others V. N. Venkatreddy & Others
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.
5. In Venku Bai v. Faju Bai@ Rajeshwaramma [1987 (1) ALT 360] relied upon by the learned trial
Judge, the Court observed that relinquishment deed need not be registered when it did not
extinguish the rights of the parties. However, it is held long ago in Rami Reddi v. Ella Reddi
(1961 (1) An.W.R. 16 (NRC) (FB)), that when rights pertaining to immoveable property are
relinquished through a document, the document is compulsorily registerable and that if the
document is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence.
6. In a recent case in Vangala Laxmamma v. Pasham Narsi Reddy (2010 (3) ALT 165 ), a learned
single Judge of this Court has pointed out that when the document purports to relinquish the
rights of a party in joint family property in respect of moveable and immoveable properties, and
where such a document was not a case of recording of a past transaction, the document would be
liable to be registered.
7. In the present case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants, past
transactions have been referred to in the document in question. However, the main purport of the
document is the present transaction of Vittal Reddy relinquishing his rights in the joint family
properties. It being a case of transfer of property, the document in question is compulsorily
registerable.
8. Consequently, the docket order of the trial court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.
The civil revision petition is allowed. It is held that the document in question is a compulsorily
registerable document and is also a document, which requires stamp duty. No costs.
9. It is made clear that in the event the defendants, who tendered the document, pay stamp duty
together with penalty or get the document impounded, the document may be looked into for
collateral purposes subject of course to proof and relevancy.
Disclaimer: Legitquest has made all efforts to avoid any omission and/or mistake in publishing this document and adding editorial and other enhancements. Legitquest would not be
liable in any manner whatsoever by reason of any omission or mistake in the published document or any action or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of the document or any
editorial or other enhancements like idraf/infographics/Note/Notebook/Acts/Rules/Regulations/Bills/Notifications/Circulars/News/Interviews/Columns/Treaties/LawCommission
Reports/Constituent Debates and/or any material or feature added by us. All disputes will be exclusively dealt with the Courts/Tribunals at Delhi only. It is advised to check the
authenticity of all published document from the original source.
(Page 2 of 2) Printed For: Aishwarya Lakhe 20-09-2021 On: 12:30:AM
