( 1 ) THIS revision raises a short, but important question viz. , when an unregistered document evidences two separate transactions, out of which one is compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act, whether the document becomes inadmissible as a whole or can be admitted, in so far as it relates to the transaction, which does not require registration.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 78 of 1992 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, kothagudem for a declaration that he is the adopted son of respondents 1 and 2. the trial of the suit is in progress. During the course of his evidence, he intended to rely upon a document, dated 5-2-1961. This document is said to have been executed by respondents 1 and 2. It refers, firstly, to the factum of adoption of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2, and thereafter, to the settlement of the property held by them, in favour of the petitioner, on the one hand, and their daughter, by name Ramulamma, on the other. An objection was raised by the respondents as to the admissibility of this document. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dina Ji v. Daddi. The trial Court sustained the objection a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document