IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH (6TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6586 of 2006 Between: Sadanala Narayanamma & another … Petitioners And: Sadanala Venkata Ramana Rao & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6586 of 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2006 in IA No.1722 of 2006 in OS No.981 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnma, wherein, the application filed by the petitioners herein –defendants 1 & 2 under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, was dismissed holding that the document dated 25.02.1984 is a relinquishment deed and requires payment of stamp duty and penalty. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2. None appeared for the first respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for partition and for recovery of possession against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 7 herein-defendants 3 to 8. At the time of trial, petitioners filed document dated 25.02.1984, which according to them, is only a reaffirmation of earlier relinquishment deed dated 13.06.1974 executed in favour of the first petitioner-first defendant by her sons first respondent-plaintiff and others. The first respondent-plaintiff objected for marking of the said document on the ground that the said document dated 25.02.1984 is also a relinquishment deed, being deficiently stamped and un- registered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioners would contend that the earlier document dated 13.06.1974 is relinquishment deed executed in favour of first defendant- Narayanamma, by her children i.e, 2nd defendant, plaintiff and others and the execution of the said document was merely reiterated in the disputed document dated 25.02.1984, which is also in favour of the first defendant-Narayanamma by one of her sons, the plaintiff and his wife and children. 4. It is not disputed that the earlier document 13.06.1974 executed in favour of Narayanamma by her children, was a relinquishment deed, relinquishing their rights in favour of their mother in respect of the house property situated in D.No.47-3-34, TS No.661, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam and the said document was duly stamped and registered. The disputed document dated 25.02.1984 was executed in respect of the self same property and in favour of Narayanamma by one of her sons S V Ramanarao i.e., Plaintiff and his wife Sudhalakshmi, son Ramesh and daughters Sujatha and Santhi and another minor son Suresh. 5. A perusal of the said document would disclose that the earlier relinquishment deed dated 13.06.1974 executed in favour of Narayanamma by her children is referred to. It is further stated therein that ever since 13.06.1974, Narayanamma has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. What all the executants of the document dated 25.02.1984 have stated therein is that the first executant i.e., SV Ramanarao, has obtained a loan from Bank of India, Visakhapatnam on the security of the said property and the bank obtained a decree in OS No.205 of 1978 and also filed EP No.105 of 1983 in execution of the decree and that first executant i.e. Ramanarao, alone would be liable for discharge of the said debt and himself or his wife or children do not have any rights over the property that is given as a security for the said loan. This recital is construed by the trial Court as a relinquishment on the part of S.V. Ramanrao and other executants of their rights in the property. It is stated that SV Ramanarao along with his brothers and sisters have already relinquished their rights in favour of their mother in the earlier document dated 13.06.1974. In the said document, it is stated that the property is the self-acquired property of their father and on his death it devolved on his wife Narayanamma and children and that all the children have relinquished their rights in the property in favour of their mother, having received Rs.2500/- towards consideration. Thus, S V Ramanrao, first executant of the document dated 25.02.1984 has already relinquished his rights in the property in favour of his mother under the document dated 13.06.1974. Admittedly, other executants of the document dated 25.02.1974 are wife and children of S V Ramanrao, who had no rights in the said property. The recitals in the said document are only to the effect of reiterating and reaffirming the earlier relinquishment deed dated 13.06.1974 executed in favour of Narayanamma by her children including S V Ramanarao with further affirmation that S.V. Ramanarao alone would be liable for discharge of the decree debt due. The proper interpretation of the recitals in the document dated 25.02.1984 would show that it was not a relinquishment deed as such in respect of the said house property, attracting application of section 17 of the Registration Act. As the document dated 25.02.1984 does not operate, create or extinguish any rights in the house property, the same does not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The impugned order holding that the document dated 25.02.1984 is a relinquishment deed and requires compulsory registration is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioners, however shall pay the stamp duty and penalty, if any payable on the document dated 25.02.1984 before it can be received as evidence as a deed of affirmation or deed of assurance. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 06.06.2011 bss