1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2010 Nilkanth Gadi Gudadhe Vs. Ramchandra Sadashiv Gudadhe thr. L. Rs. Sarubai wd/o Ramchandra Gudadhe & 1 Ano. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Bhushand Mohta Adv. H/f Shri Parchure Adv for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 5 th APRIL , 2010. Heard counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred by the original defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the suit property originally belonged to 2 one Ganpat. It was admeasuring 42 Ares. There was a partition amongst two sons of Ganpat namely Gadi and Sadashiv. Appellant/defendant is the son of Gadi while respondent plaintiff is son of Sadashiv Gudadhe. Gadi and Sadashiv got the said land 42 Ares divided into equal proportion i. e. 21 Are land. Plaintiff's land was numbered as 194/1 while defendants land was numbered as 194/2. Plaintiff submits that he was in possession of the property but one day he found that the defendant had fraudulently got his name entered into the revenue record. Plaintiff therefore filed this suit for declaration. 3. Defendant had resisted the suit and had contended that the entry was taken in the revenue record with the consent of the plaintiff and there was a relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Trial Court found that plaintiff had relinquished the share and the entry of the name of defendant was not taken fraudulently. Holding so learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit. Appellate Court however found that, that 3 relinquishment deed was not executed as per law and though defendant's name was entered with consent that did not confer any right, title or interest in the defendant and holding so he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entry in the revenue record was taken with the consent of the plaintiff and that itself is enough to hold that defendant is owner. Submission cannot be accepted. Simple entry in the revenue record does not either confer any right, title or interest or take away the title. So far as relinquishment deed is concerned, the learned Judge of the first appellate Court found that relinquishment deed is not a registered document. He has therefore rightly held that said relinquishment deed did not transfer any right, title or interest. It was submitted that relinquishment deed does not require any registration. Submission is not correct. Relinquishment may not require registration only when such relinquishment is effected at the time of 4 partition itself. This relinquishment deed was not executed at the time of partition itself. The defendant who claims the relinquishment in his favour does not have any existing or subsisting right in the said property nor does he have a share in it. Therefore there could be no relinquishment as such and relinquishment would in such cases be invalid. It would require a transfer by a registered deed alone. First Appellate Court has rightly dealt with the aspect. There is no other question of law involved in the appeal. I, therefore, see no merit in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk