Defendant in O.S.No.421 of 1996, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, assails the order, dated 26-10-2004, passed by the trial court, refusing to receive a document in evidence.

2. The deceased first respondent and deceased petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. Respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was urged that the suit schedule property was initially purchased, by the mother of the first respondent and petitioners 1 and 2, by name Smt. Achamma, and she in turn, sold it to the first respondent, through a sale deed. It was urged that in spite of such an exclusive sale, the petitioners herein are in possession of the property.

3. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that during the life time of Achamma, the first respondent obtained a sale deed from her clandestinely, and ultimately, when it was challenged by the respondents and other village elders, he executed a document dated 26-2-1965, stating that he purchased the property from their mother, with a view to protect it from others, since the petitioners 1 and 2 were not available at a time, when the health of their mother was failing.

4. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioners sought to rely upon the document, dated 26-2-1965. It was objected to by the respondents, and through an elaborate order, the trial court rejected the request of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document, by itself, does not relinquish, or convey any title, and it only states the circumstances, under which a sale deed came to be executed, in favour of first respondent, and connotes his readiness to share the property with his other two brothers, i.e. petitioners 1 and 2. He contends that neither any partition nor any sale has taken place under that document, and at any rate, it can be taken into consideration, for collateral purposes.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the document, in clear terms, states that the sale in favour of the first respondent was nominal, and to that effect, it is a transaction, which is compulsorily registrable.

7. The respondents filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. While the respondents represent the branch of one son, the petitioners represent the branches of other two sons of late Achamma. It is not in dispute that she was the absolute owner of the suit property. The first respondent pleaded that he acquired exclusive title for the property, on the strength of a sale deed, executed by late Achamma, in his favour, and on that basis, he sought to recover the suit schedule property. The petitioners on the other hand pleaded that the property continued to be joint, after the death of Achamma, and that the first respondent cannot claim any exclusive right over it. They intended to neutralise the effect of sale deed in favour of the first respondent, on the strength of the document in question. The only question in this C.R.P. is as to whether the document, dated 26-2-1965, is admissible in evidence.

8. The document is in Telugu, and a rough translation was also provided. The three brothers are parties ·to the document. The recitals mostly emanated from the first respondent. He stated that he purchased the property from his mother, at a time, when her health was failing and when his brothers were not in the village. He stated that the property must belong to all the three brothers. He also agreed to share the property with the other two brothers, as per the decision of the elders.

9. It is quite P9ssible for the respondents, to submit that, if the document is taken on its face value, it amounts to relinquishment of rights under the sale deed, in favour of the first respondent. However, viewed from the context of the relationship of the parties and the circumstances under which the sale deed was said to have been executed, a different con