THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3674 of 2011 September 16, 2011 Between: Pasupuleti Chakram, W/o.Yenugu Satyanarayana And another ... Petitioners And Pasapa Manga Rao, S/o.Vumpaka Swamy ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3674 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit being O.S. No.74 of 2005 seeking declaration that they are entitled for the amounts deposited towards compensation amount awarded by the Government for the land of Acs.1.47 in S.No.379 situated at J.Annavaram village under the Land Acquisition Award No.6 of 1990. During the course of recording of evidence, they wanted to mark the document dated 10.4.1980 which is an unregistered gift deed under which the petitioners allegedly got the said property towards pasupu kumkuma from their parents. By order dated 02.7.2011, the Court below upheld the objection raised by the other side and refused to mark the document, aggrieved by which the present civil revision petition is filed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In G.Jayaram Reddy v M.Padmavathamma[1], while holding that transfer of property by way of pasupu kumkuma to a daughter by her parents requires compulsory registration, the Full Bench of this Court, to which I was a member, observed as under. The daughters save and except under a customary or statutory right cannot have any share in a joint family property. Even assuming that she has such right, she can only claim partition, but it is beyond any cavil of doubt that if a transaction is effected in writing, the same would require registration. The Division Bench, in our opinion, further committed a manifest error in holding that the ‘pasupu kumkuma’ being both involuntary as well as for consideration, the same would not be a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Evidently such a transaction would create right in immovable property in one and the right of the owner thereof shall be extinguished and thus the same would attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. No authority has been cited by the learned Division Bench in support of their opinion that pasupu kumkuma could very well be done orally. In view of the above legal position, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) September 16, 2011 YS [1] 2001 (5) ALT 130 (F.B.)