1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2010 1 Ramakant Moreshwar Shasane (since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives) 1. 1 Shobhana Ramakiant Shasane 1. 2Dubash Ramakant Shasane 1.3Harendra Ramakant Shasane 1.4Anjali Govind Phatak ...Petitioners vs. 1 Nandkumar Moreshwar Shasane 2 Prashanti Nandakumar Shasane 3 Rajesh Nandakumar Shasane 4 Umesh Nandakumar Shasane ...Respondents Shri G.S.Godbole i/b Ms Pallavi Dabholkar for the petitioners Mr.S.G.Karandikar for respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 8, 2010 P.C. 1 Considering the narrow controversy involved in this writ petition, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. Impugned order has been passed on the application made by the petitioners at Exhibit-71. By the application at Exhibit-71, the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the document dated 24th December 1969 produced by them in the trial Court. It was contended that the document has been signed by the original first defendant. The prayer in the application was that the said document be exhibited in view of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The said application was objected by the respondents by contending that the document is in the 2 nature of a Release Deed for consideration mentioned therein. It was contended that as the consideration was more than Rs.100/-, the said document was not admissible in the evidence in view of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1908) and the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1958). By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the document is nothing but a receipt. He submitted that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is compulsory registrable document under the said Act of 1908, the same will have to be read for the collateral purposes which is permissible in accordance with said Act of 1908. He submitted that non registration of the document was no ground to deny benefit of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. He submitted that even if the Court is of the view that the document is insufficiently stamped, the procedure under section 34 of the said Act of 1958 will have to be followed. 4 The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that document is in the nature of relinquishment of right, title and interest in the immoveable property having value of more Rs.100/-. He submitted that apart from insufficiency of stamp, there is a defect of non- registration. As the document is insufficiently stamped, the same is not admissible in evidence. 5 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The document in dispute has been annexed to the writ petition. The document records that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been received by the first plaintiff from 3 the first defendant and in consideration of the amount , first plaintiff has relinquished his right, title or interest in respect of the immoveable property i.e a house at village Chinchani and a land. Therefore, on plain reading of the said document, the executant has purported to relinquish his right, title and interest in respect of an immoveable property having value of more than Rs.100/-. Therefore, the said document is not adequately stamped as per the provisions of the said Act of 1958 and therefore, the trial Court will have to follow the procedure prescribed by section 34 of the said Act of 1958 and the document can be admitted in evidence only after compliance is made by the petitioners with the requirement of payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty as provided under the said Act of 1958. Only after the said compliance is made, the Court will have to go into the prayer in the application at Exhibit-71 as well as the issue of the admissibility thereof in evidence on the ground of non- registration. It is obvious that the said aspects will be considered by the trial Court after hearing the parties. 6 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order: i) Impugned order dated 19th November 2009 is quashed and set aside. ii)In view of the finding recorded by this Court in this Judgment, the trial Court shall follow the procedure provided under section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958. iii)Only after the deficit duty and penalty as provided by law is paid by the petitioners, the trial Court will take up the application at Exhibit-71 for hearing. It is obvious that the 4 while deciding the said application, the effect of non-registration on the admissibility thereof will be decided. iv)Petition is partly allowed on above terms. JUDGE