1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Docket Order dated 14.06.2023 passed in OS.No.102 of 2014 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar wherein it is held that the document dated 05.11.1996 does not require registration.

2. Petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.5 to 7 in OS.No.102 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that the learned trial Court wrongly came to a conclusion that the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement but not relinquishment deed. The Court below came to a conclusion that the intention of the parties is to settle the dispute between the elders and the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement. On the face of the record document dated 05.11.1996 is a relinquishment deed therefore requires registration, in support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Akula Sangappa Vs. Bandam Siddappa (Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/39930168/) (2) B.Raghupathi Vs. M.Hari (Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/22785270/) and prayed to set aside the order by allowing the Revision.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein-defendant Nos.6 and 7 and in support of his contention relied on the decision in the case of Jinesh Jain Vs. Amit Jain and Others (2025 LawSuit(Del) 1414).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein-defendant Nos.5 to 7 are formal parties to the Civil Revision Petition.

5.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit against the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.2 to 4-defendant Nos.5 to 7 for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the schedule property admeasuring 60 Sq.yards consisting of three shops and its court yard covered with compound wall bearing Municipal Door No.2-5-8 of Vepurigari area of Mahabubnagar town and also for mesne profits of past and future till delivery of possession from 28.06.2013 onwards.

               5.2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has stated in Para (c) of the plaint that ”During the pendency of the issue of construction permission proceedings, the defendant Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) who are totally strangers and nothing to do with the property with the intervention of hooligans, took an amount of Rs.22,000/- forcibly and executed a relinquishment deed dated 05.11.1996 in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff’s mother by name Indiramma by taking advantage of her weakness”.

               5.3. Plaint further goes to show that grandfather of the plaintiff by name Papaiah is having two daughters namely Satyamma who is the mother of defendant Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) and Indiramma who is the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Papaiah has executed a will deed in favour of Indiramma in respect of the property admeasuring 204.15 Sq.yrds in Municipal No.2-5-8 on 29.06.1981. Through the said will Indiramma has became the owner of the above said property, and mutation is affected and ownership proceedings are issued to that effect on 12.09.1983 vide proceedings No.59/370/83 and the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff by name Indiramma in turn has executed will deed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff on 05.08.1993.

6.1. In Akula Sangappa1, the High Court observed that “under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, any document relinquishing a right in immovable property shall be registered”.

               6.2. In B.Raghupathi2, the High Court observed that “the relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registerable and if the same is not registered, becomes inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of Registration Act. The documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act are compulsorily registerable and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of document and therefore becomes inadmissible document”.

7. On perusal of the document dated 05.11.1996 which is captioned as Hakku Vidudala Patram (deed of relinquishment). It is specifically stated in the said document that V.Ramanand (respondent No.3-defendant No.6), Shyamalamma (respondent No.4-defendant No.7) have received cash of Rs.22,000/- from Indiramma (Mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff) to relieve their rights over House No.2–5–8 and having no objections over the property.

8. The document dated 05.11.1996 clearly shows that respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.6 and 7 have relinquished their rights in House No.2-5-8 by receiving a consideration of Rs.22,000/-.

9. In Jinesh Jain3, the High Court of Delhi held that “Family Settlements are not a compulsory registerable document”. The point fell for consideration before the Delhi High Court is with regard to refund of stamp duty amount. The facts in the above decision are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of the above said decision will not apply to the present case.

10. On a naked eye, document dated 05.11.1996 is a relinquishment deed which is also stated by respondent No.1-plaintiff in Para (c) of the plaint. So also it is mentioned as a relinquishment deed in the list of documents at serial No.11. The learned trial Court has misread the document dated 05.11.1996 and wrongly came to a conclusion that it is a settlement agreement which does not require registration. The learned trial Court failed to notice Para (c) of the plaint wherein the respondent No.1-plaintiff categorically stated that it is a relinquishment deed. The order of the learned trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside as the document dated 05.11.1996 is a relinquishment deed. The decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel stated supra at Para Nos.6.1 and 6.2 are squarely applicable to the case on hand.

11. In view of the reasons above, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Docket Order dated 14.06.2023 passed in OS.No.102 of 2014 is set aside without costs.

Interim orders, if any, shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed.