AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner/Plaintiff has instituted O.S. No. 7182/1998 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore, against Respondents/Defendants for the relief of declaration of title, possession and for alternate/consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property. The Defendants have filed written statements and have contested the suit claim. Issues were raised.
A letter was sought to be marked during the course of evidence of PW-1, which was objected on behalf of the Defendants, on the ground that, there is relinquishment of right over the immovable property, which is more than Rs. 100/- and requires compulsory registration.
Learned trial judge having heard the arguments and having perused the letter/document has arrived at the conclusion that, it creates a right in the property in view of relinquishment of rights over the property of their father and mother in favour of B.G. Ramaswamy and since the value of immovable property is more than Rs. 100/-, it requires registration u/s 17-B of the Indian Registration Act and further, the document having not been drawn on the requisite stamp paper, it is inadmissible in evidence. Said order has been questioned in this writ petition.
Sri A.M. Vijay, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner firstly contended that, the impugned letter is a continuation of the registered release deed dated 18.06.1979 and does not purport to create any fresh right, title or interest over Site No. 42, which was acquired by the CUB nor does it relinquish any right over the immovable property as such and in holding otherwise, the learned trial judge has committed an error and illegality. Secondly, the trial court has failed to appreciate that, under the objected letter what was sought to be done was the cancellation of indemnity bond and the joint affidavit dated 16.06.1979 and such an act of cancellation of unregistered documents would not attract the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and hence, the impugned order is irrational and illegal.
Sri V. Ramesha Babu, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand contended that, the objected letter is nothing but a relinquishment deed and since there is a release of right in respect of an immovable property, in writing, it requires compulsory registration to make it operative, as required u/s 17 of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that, Section 17(1)(b) of the Act clearly provides that, a document of present type requires registration.
In view of the rival contentions and the record, which I have perused, the point for consideration is:
Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the letter in question requires compulsory registration?
Indisputedly, the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Smt. B.G. Rathnamma and Sri B. Gundu Rao. Smt. Rathnamma during her life time had held a property bearing revenue site No. 42 in Sy. No. 157/4 of Kyathamaranahalli, Bangalore. The said property has been acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and the possession was also taken over. In respect of the said non existent property, the parties had sworn to a joint affidavit and indemnity bond, both dated 16.6.79. The said documents found a place in a subsequent letter dated 18.6.79 written by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff, whereby the said joint affidavit and indemnity bond were treated as cancelled. By noticing the said letter which was pursuant to a registered release deed which has been marked as Ex.P2, the Trial Court has held that it creates a right in the property, as there is a relinquishment of rights by the executants over the property of their father and mother in favour of the Plaintiff.
Since the property referred to in the letter, indisputedly has been acquired by the CITB pursuant to a Notification dated 15.11.67 and the possession was taken over for the formation of West of Chord Road, II Stage Layout, by the 4th Defendant, the question of any relinquishment of rights by the executants does not arise. The Trial Court has not noticed the said aspect and by misdirecting itself, has mechanically passed the impugned order, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is irrational and illegal.
In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands quashed.