Madras High Court
Kasthuri vs Kothandapani Reddy on 10 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.15543 of 2019
Janakirama Reddy (Deceased)
1. Kasthuri
2. Santhanakumar
3. Karpagam
4. Master Ponmani
5. Indhumathi
Both minors are rep.
by their natural guardian
mother Karpagam
6. S.Malar
7. Raveendran ... Petitioners
Vs.
Chakrapani Reddy (Deceased)
1. Kothandapani Reddy
2. Sasikala
3. A.Gopi
4. Ramdoss
5. Nataraj
6. Sarasammal
7. Sudha
8. Parameswari
9. Soori
10. Mani. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final orders dated 12.04.2019,
passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur, in I.A.No.1245 of 2018
in O.S.No.340 of 2004.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ilamparithi
For Respondents
For R1, R4 to R10 : Mr.P.Mallikarjun
For Mr.V.Raghavachari
For R2 : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair
and decreetal order dated 12.04.2019, passed by the learned District Munsif,
Thiruvallur, in I.A.No.1245 of 2018 in O.S.No.340 of 2004, thereby
dismissing the petition filed to receive the document viz., the letter of release
dated 30.11.1983 and mark the evidence as one of the exhibits of the
petitioners' herein.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the
defendants. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
injunction in respect of the suit property. The case of the petitioners is that
the letter of release dated 30.11.1983 is a bonafide one and was given by
three brothers of the petitioner's father and it was not induced by fraud,
coercion or undue influence and it was prepared after oral family
arrangements for the purpose of record. It does not create or extinguish any
rights in the suit property and it can be marked as document.
3. On a perusal of the document dated 30.11.1983, it is nothing
but release deed executed by the first and second respondents and one
deceased Bakthavatchala Reddy, thereby released their right in respect of the
suit property and released in favour of the petitioners herein on 30.11.1983.
Therefore, it requires compulsory registration. In fact, the family
arrangements reduced in writing purporting to create, declare, assign, limit
or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property should be
stamped an registered and also categorically held that documents if required
to be stamped but not so stamped cannot be looked into for any purpose.
4. Heard Mr.S.Ilamparithi, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
petitioners and Mr.P.Mallikarjun, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2,4 to 10 and Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment reported in AIR 1966 SC 292 in the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil
Vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India held that family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. It would
serve the purpose of proof or evidence of what had been decided between the
brothers. It was not the basis of their right in any form over the property
which each brother had agreed to enjoy to the exclusion of the others.
Whereas in the case on hand, the petitioners intended to mark the document
dated 30.11.1983 which is the release document thereby relinquished the
right in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, the above judgment is not
applicable to the present case.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
upon the judgment dated 07.10.2005, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Amteshwar Anand Vs. Virender Mohan Singh, in
Appeal (Civil) No.6326 of 2005, which held that Section 17(1) of the
Registration Act, 1908 insofar as it is relevant, requires under Clause (b)
thereof, registration of non-testamentary instruments which purport or
operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest. Further held that one of the exceptions
made in Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, pertains to any composition
deed. In other words all composition deeds are exempt from the requirement
to be registered under the Registration Act. The transaction between the
members of the same family for the mutual benefit of such member is the
composition deed.
7. However, in the case on hand as aforesaid the document dated
30.11.1983, is the release deed thereby relinquished the right in favour of
the petitioners. Therefore, the above judgements are not applicable to the
present case and hence, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition and
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
below.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
10.01.2023
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The District Munsif,
Thiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.No.2384 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.15543 of 2019
10.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
