Plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, filed this revision. She feels aggrieved by the order dated 31-03-2006 passed by the trial Court, overruling her objection as to the admissibility of an unregistered relinquishment deed.

2. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The relation of the parties to the suit was not disputed. However, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner executed a relinquishment deed dated 25-05-1994, giving up her right in two items, viz., land in Sy.Nos.127/1 A and 128, after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/-. They urged that the petitioner is not entitled for any share in the said items of property.

3. The trial Court framed necessary issues, and the trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed. During the course of evidence, on behalf of the respondents herein, the document dated 25-05-1994 was sought to be relied upon. The petitioner raised an objection as to its admissibility on the ground that it is not registered. The respondents raised a twofold plea. According to them, once the document became part of the record, when it was filed through affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, it is impermissible for the petitioner to raise an objection, in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the Stamp Act). The second was that a relinquishment deed executed by one coparcener in favour of another, does not need registration. After hearing both the parties, and by undertaking extensive discussion, the trial Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioner, and held that the document can be received in evidence.

4. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act (for short the Registration Act) mandates that any document, which has the effect of creating or taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property, must be registered, and Section 47 (sic. 49) of the said Act places bar on the admissibility of unregistered documents, which deal with transactions that are required to be registered, under Section 17 (1) (b). He contends that the fact that the petitioner is a coparcener, hardly makes any difference, as long as the document had the effect of obliterating her rights. He further submits that the fact that a document was presented along with the affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, cannot lead to the situation of the Court receiving it in evidence and thereby, Section 36 of the Stamp Act, does not get attracted.

5. Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, who filed caveat, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not dispute the factum of receiving consideration or execution of the said document, and being the one, evidencing an arrangement within the family, it does not need registration. He further contends that the petitioner did not raise any objection, when the document was filed along with the affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination.

6. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, two questions arise, viz.,

(1) Whether Section 36 of the Stamp Act gets attracted to the facts of the case, and

(2) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 25-05-1994 is admissible in evidence.

7. Section 36 of the Stamp Act mandates that once a document is received in evidence, an objection as to any defect in payment of stamp duty etc., cannot be entertained at a later point of time. Pressing this provision into service, the respondents contend that the document in question has already become part of record, and no objection can be raised at a subsequent stage.

8. Two aspects need to be taken into account in this regard. The controversy in the instant case is, not much about the adequacy or otherwise of the stamp duty, but in relation to the registration. In many cases, any defe