( 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 and refused to take the document on record. Hence, this revision petition.

( 3 ) SRI Palivela Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer in the suit is only in relation to the adoption of the petitioner and no right, as such, is claimed on any property held by respondents 1 and 2. He contends that the document witnesses two independent transactions viz. , adoption of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2, and settlement of the property held by them. According to the learned counsel, the transaction of adoption is not required to be compulsorily registered in law and as such, there is no impediment for receiving the document, to that extent. So far as the second part of the document is concerned, learned counsel submits that it is not admissible in evidence, and at any rate, it does not fall for consideration in this suit.

( 4 ) SRI Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the document is inseparable in its contents and once there is a predominant object of settlement of the property, it is not admissible in evidence, as it was not registered. He submits that the reference to adoption of the petitioner in the said document was solely in the context of the settlement and as such, it cannot be viewed in isolation.

( 5 ) AS observed earlier, the document refers to adoption of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and settlement of the properties held by them in favour of their adopted son and their natural daughter, on the other. There is no dispute that the prayer in the suit is limited to the one of declaration of the statusof the petitioneras the adopted son of respondents 1 and 2. The hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the Act ) deals with various aspects of adoption, by Hindu parents. The Act does not insist that adoption of a child shall be only through a registered document. Section 16 of the Act provides an indication that registration is not compulsory. According to this, where the adoption is through a registered document and it is signed by the persons giving and taking the child, in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, till the same is disproved. In other words, it provides for rebuttable presumption, where the adoption is witnessed by a registered deed. It naturally follows that an adoption does not become invalid, on the sole ground that it is not witnessed by a registered document.

( 6 ) THE settlement of immovable property, however, stands on a different footing. Under section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908, any document that creates interest in immovable properties is compulsorily registrable. Therefore, it emerges that the document, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document