Dismissed

M. Narayana Reddy v. G.R. Munivenkata Reddy

Madras HC10 Jan 2022CRP/1829/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Trial Court's refusal to admit an unstamped and unregistered release deed as evidence. Rejecting the claim that it was merely a Panchayat record, the Court held the document evidenced a release transaction requiring registration. The revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed. No costs. Connected petitions closed.

M. Narayana Reddy Vs G.R. Munivenkata Reddy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.01.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶7

M.Narayana Reddy 2. Sekhar 3. Sowmya 4. Manjunatha Reddy 5. Kanthamma 6. Minor K.Sowjanya 7. Minor K.Naveen .. Petitioners Petitioners 6 and 7 represented by their natural guardian mother the 5^th petitioner) Vs.

¶8

G.R.Munivenkata Reddy .. Respondent 1/9

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 27.07.2021 made in IA No.7 of 2021 in IA No.6 of 2021 in OS. No.173 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Nandagopal For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The first defendant in OS No.173 of 2007 is on Revision. Challenge is

¶15

to the order of the learned Sub Judge, Hosur, rejecting a document styled as bfhz;lhLk; ghf ghj;jpa mf;F tpLjiy g";rhaj;J gl;o, from being received in evidence.

¶16

2. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and injunction by the

¶17

plaintiff claiming that he has purchased the properties from

¶18

2/9

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶21

Saraswathamma, the sister of the petitioner under a Sale Deed dated 23.10.1996.

¶22

3. The suit is being resisted by the defendants contending that the said Saraswathamma, had pursuant toa family arrangement executed a Deed of Release on 19.08.1996 after having received appropriate consideration towards her share. It is the said deed of release which is sought to be produced in evidence.

¶23

4. The learned Trial Judge concluded that the said document which operates as a release in itself being unstamped and unregistered cannot be received in evidence. On the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge rejected the document.

¶24

5. Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶25

would vehemently contend that the document is only a record of a Panchayat made and therefore can be looked into even without registration and stamping. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble 3/9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶28

Supreme Court in Subraya v. Vittala, made in Civil Appeal No.5805 of 2016.

¶29

6. Contending contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the document which is sought to be produced though styled as a bfhz;lhLk; ghf ghj;jpa mf;F tpLjiy g";rhaj;J gl;o, is a proper release deed which evidences a transaction of release and it is not a record of a previous transaction. That being the case, the learned counsel would submit that such a document

¶30

cannot be received in evidence for want of stamping and registration.

¶31

7. I have considered the rival submissions.

¶32

8. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subraya v.

¶33

Vittala , is not in dispute. While it is open to co-owners or co-shares to enter

¶34

into oral transactions regarding allotment of properties amongst them or release of their rights over the properties amongst them, if they are reduced

¶35

4/9

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶38

to writing, then the law of registration and law of stamping would automatically apply. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court had made exceptions to documents which only record a oral transaction that had taken place earlier in point of time from the applicability of law of registration and law of stamping. Therefore, what matters is the effect of the document. There cannot be a hard and fast rule regarding receipt of documents styled as a release deeds or family arrangements for want of registration and stamping.

¶39

9. It would depend on the language of the document and the purport

¶40

of the document, if the document operates in itself to create rights or to release rights or to effect a partition then the document would undoubtedly require registration and stamping. On the other hand, if the document is only a record of a transaction which has happened earlier or a conclusion of the Panchayat which has been accepted by the parties earlier which are loosely called past oral transactions then registration and stamping may not be mandatory and document can be received in evidence as proof of such transaction having taken place earlier in point of time.

¶41

5/9

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶44

10. Therefore, it is for the Court to examine the document concerned

¶45

in each and every case and decide on the purport of the document before applying the principles of law. In the case on hand, the document that is sought to be produced is titled as a bfhz;lhLk; ghf ghj;jpa

¶46

mf;F tpLjiy g";rhaj;J gl;o, but a perusal of the document would show that the document is a release deed by itself and it is not a record of a past oral transaction or a previous decision of the Panchayat. Though it is stated that the Panchayatdors have suggested a release, the document very clearly recites that the sister namely the vendor of the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- on the date of the instrument

¶47

and released her rights under the instrument. This is evident from the following recitals in the instrument:

¶48

“ ehd; ,d;W g";rhaj;jhh;fspd; Kd;ghf U:/1.05.000/00 vGj;jhy; xU

¶49

yl;rj;J Ie;jhapuk; U:gha;fis buhf;fkhf bgw;Wf; bfhz;L ekJ bghJ Flk;g

¶50

6/9

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶53

brhj;jpy; ehd; bfhz;lhoa ghf ghj;jpa mf;if ,d;W g";rhaj;jhh; Kd;g[ kdjhu xg;g[f; bfhz;L tpLjiy bra;J bfhLj;J tpl;nld;/ ”

¶54

“ ehd; nkw;go g";rhaj;jhh; bra;j ,e;j jPh;g;ig g";rhaj;jhh; Kd; xg;g[f; bfhz;L bjhif U:/1.05.000/00 vGj;jhy; xU yl;rj;J Ie;jhapuk; U:gha;fis ,d;W g";rhaj;jhh; Kd;dpiyapy; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L tpl;nld; vd;Wk; vd; kd rk;kjpapy; vGjp itj;Jf; bfhLj;j g";rhaj;J jPh;khd mf;F tpLjiyg; gl;o rhpahdJ/ ”

¶55

11. The above recitals would clearly go to show that the document in

¶56

question is a release deed in itself and it evidences the release. It is not a

¶57

7/9

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶60

record of a past oral transaction. Hence I am unable to fault the Trial Court for having rejected the document for want of stamping and registration. The Civil Revision therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶61

10.01.2022

¶62

¶63

Index: No Internet: Yes Speaking order

¶64

¶65

The Additional Sub Court, Hosur.

¶66

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶67

8/9

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

C.R.P. (PD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶70

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶71

¶72

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1829 of 2021 and CMP No.14204 of 2021

¶73

10.01.2022

¶74

9/9

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. Narayana Reddy v. G.R. Munivenkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Narayana Reddy v. G.R. Munivenkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathinammal Vs Rajendran

G.Yasodha Vs R.Umarani

C.R.Arun Pandian Vs a.Balasubramaniam

D.Chandrammal Vs P.Kalaiselvi

I.Akila Vs R.Karthikeyan

Manoranjitham Vs M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation