HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.C.A.No.330 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2240 of 2004 on the file of the XI Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 12.12.2006. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed for the relief of partition of suit schedule property i.e. house bearing MC.No.1-4-16, Bholakpura, Musheerabad Mandal, admeasuring 300 square yards. The 2nd defendant is the wife of late Mohd. Moinuddin. The plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 are their sons and defendants 6 to 9 are their daughters. The 1st defendant is another wife of late Mohd. Moinuddin. The plaintiff pleaded that his father acquired two items of property, namely the suit schedule property and another item, bearing No.1-8-19 situated at Minister Road, Secunderabad, and that he i.e. the plaintiff, relinquished his share in the second item of property, by receiving a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- and executed a Deed of Relinquishment. He stated that the 3rd defendant, who is in possession of the property, did not accede to his request for partition of the suit schedule property. The 3rd defendant alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. According to him, the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that their father deserted the plaintiff, as his son, in the year 1994 itself, and by receiving a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-the plaintiff has relinquished all his rights over the properties acquired by their father. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder, denying the allegations in the written statement. Through its judgment, dated 12.12.2006, the trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff has relinquished his share in the suit schedule property. Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff, submits that the question of a father deserting a son, that too, in the context of succession to an item of immovable property, does not arise. He contends that the plaintiff relinquished his share, only in respect of property bearing No.1-8-19, through Ex.B.1, and that the trial Court has placed a distorted interpretation under Ex.B.4-receipt for Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that, when Ex.B.1 is in respect of a specific item of property, its scope cannot be extended to another item. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent- defendant, submits that though Ex.B.1 was executed in respect of one item, Ex.B.4-receipt is to the effect that the plaintiff has relinquished his rights against all items of property acquired by his father. He contends that the trial Court has taken into account the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at just and proper conclusions. The relationship between the parties, is not disputed. The claim of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of one item of suit schedule property was resisted only by the 3rd defendant. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is deserted by his father during his life time and hence has no right over the suit property? 3. Whether the suit property is the only Mathruka property of his father? 4. Whether the suit property along with other properties are bequeathed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 to 9 respectively?” The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed Ex.A1-office copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2003 issued to the 3rd defendant demanding partition and the reply dated 23.01.2003 received from him, is marked as Ex.A.2. Defendants 2, 3 and 6 deposed as DWs.2, 1 and 3 respectively. The 3rd defendant filed Exs.B.1 to B.5. Ex.B.1 is the relinquishment deed dated 06.05.1999, executed by the plaintiff; Ex.B.2 is a Will said to have been executed by their father on 16.01.1994; Ex.B.3 is English translation thereof; and Exs.B.4 and B.5 are receipts, dated 08.05.1999. The husband of defendants 1 and 2 and father of plaintiff and defendants 3 to 9 acquired two items of immovable property during his life time. No partition has taken place, when he was alive. It appears that the relationship of the plaintiff with the other defendants is not that cordial. The plaintiff admitted that he executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of an item of property, bearing No.1-8-19, and stated that he did not include that item, in the suit schedule, because of that development. The Mathruka character of the item in the suit schedule is not doubted by any one. The 3rd defendant claimed the property exclusively for himself, raising two grounds, namely, his father executed a Will under Ex.B.2 in his favour and that the plaintiff has relinquished all his rights vis-à-vis that property, through Ex.B.4. The point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the plaintiff has relinquished his rights vis-à-vis the suit schedule property? The question as to whether Ex.B.2-Will is true, genuine and binding on the parties was not addressed by the trial Court itself, obviously, on account of its finding on Ex.B.4. The relinquishment of rights, in respect of an item of immovable property, can be made, only through a document, which is registered as Release Deed. As a matter of fact, the parties to the suit were aware of this legal position, as is evident from Ex.B.1. The recitals therein disclose that the plaintiff has relinquished his rights, vis-à-vis the item of property mentioned therein, namely 1-8-19, by receiving a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. It appears that the consideration under the document did not pass on to the plaintiff on the date of execution i.e. 06.05.1999. Two sums of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- are said to have been paid on 08.05.1999 and receipts thereof were issued under Exs.B.4 and B.5. Though the defendants admit that only one item of property is covered under Ex.B.1, they stated that the relinquishment is in respect of both the items and for that purpose, they rely upon the recitals in Ex.B.4. The true nature of disposition of rights of the parties in an item of property is to be determined, on the basis of recitals in a document. This is particularly so when the transaction is required to be registered. Receipt evidencing payment of amount in respect of a transaction covered by a registered document virtually becomes insignificant. The receipt would become relevant and important, only in the context of the suits for specific performance or for recovery of the amounts covered by them. Once a document pertaining to the transaction is registered, hardly there exists any relevance for the receipt. Even where the receipt has any significance, it does not have any precedence, when it is pitted against a full-fledged document. In the instant case, Ex.B.4 does not pertain to any independent transaction. Virtually it supplements the one that is covered by Ex.B.1. There cannot be any contradiction between those two documents. Even if there exists any contradiction, the document-Ex.B.1 has to prevail over on mere receipt i.e. Ex.B.4. On facts also, there is nothing in Ex.B.4 to disclose that the plaintiff has relinquished his rights vis-à- vis the suit schedule property. DWs.1 to 3 made an endeavour to expand the scope of Ex.B.4. There would have been some scope for accepting the plea of the 3rd defendant, in case the amount covered by Exs.B.4 and B.5 is over and above the one mentioned in Ex.B.1. That is not the case. The total consideration mentioned in Ex.B.1 is Rs.2,25,000/- and that is the amount referred to in Exs.B.4 and B.5. Hence, there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in recording a finding that the plaintiff has relinquished his rights vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. This Court would have passed a preliminary decree, but for the fact that the scope of the Will propounded by the 3rd defendant was not examined in detail by the trial Court from the legal and factual point of view. Therefore, there exists a necessity to remand the matter to the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal. It is, however, directed that the trial Court shall not treat Ex.B.4 as the basis for relinquishment of rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:26.04.2011 GJ