1. The order in I.A. No.385 of 2009 in O.S. No.96 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, dated 09-03-2010 is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The petition was filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the document styled as ‘no objection certificate’ from the plaintiff and the 7th defendant, attempted to be exhibited and admitted into evidence through the 1st defendant as D.W.1. The plaintiff contended that the document could not have been confronted to the 1st defendant in his chief-examination as D.W.1 when it was filed by the 8th defendant and it could not have been admitted into evidence for want of required stamp duty and registration, as it amounted to relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff and the 7th defendant in respect of the subject property. Defendants 8 and 9 contended that there is no prohibition against marking the document through the 1st defendant who was a witness to the document and the document cannot be treated as a conveyance or as a relinquishment requiring any stamp duty or registration, as no right is conveyed or transferred under the document.

3. After hearing both parties, the trial Court rendered the impugned order observing that the document can be confronted to D.W.1 by defendants 8 and 9 at the time of cross-examination, as D.W.1 was a witness to the document. The trial Court also observed that ‘no objection certificate’ is not a relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff and the 7th defendant, as the recitals in the document do not convey any right or transfer any right in the property and also did not refer to any consideration. The trial Court referred to two decisions of this Court, whereunder the documents were considered to be not compulsorily registerable, but evidently the conclusions of this Court in the precedents were based on the facts of those cases and the contents of those documents. The trial Court further went on to opine that what all the ‘no objection certificate’ intended to convey was the intention of the executants that they had no objection to the sale deeds executed by the brothers and that they have no concern with the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds. The trial Court also considered that the document cannot be considered to fall under the prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act when it is not a relinquishment deed and therefore, the ‘no objection certificate’ was held to be admissible in evidence not requiring any registration and the petition was dismissed.

4. The revision petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that the document could not have been confronted to D.W.1 during his chief-examination and the deed of relinquishment required registration under the Registration Act. The nomenclature of the document could not have been taken by the trial Court as the criteria and the document could not have been admitted into evidence.

5. Heard Sri K. Lakshman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 at the stage of admission. As the document was filed into Court by defendants 8 and 9 who seek its admission into evidence, which is opposed by the plaintiff, the notice to other parties to the suit/respondents 1 to 7 herein is considered not necessary.

6. The only point for consideration is as to what is the nature of the document in question and depending on the nature of the document what would be its liability to any stamp duty and penalty or registration and the consequences thereof ?

Point:

7. It is seen from the plaint that the plaintiff specifically pleaded that she, her brothers-defendants 1 to 5, her mother-defendant No.6 and her sister-defendant No.7 became entitled to their respective shares in the suit schedule properties on the demise of her father Md. Gousuddin and based on such claim, she filed the suit for her share in A, B and C schedule pr