Both the counsel have agreed for disposal of the above Civil Revisions Petitions, as such, both the C.R.Ps are taken up for final disposal. Both the Civil Revisions Petitions arise out of the same issue, as such, both the cases are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The factual matrix of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Cases are as follows:

The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.175 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Bhongir, for partition against the petitioners No.1 to 3 and the respondent No.2 herein. During the course of evidence of Dw.1, the defendants No.1 to 3 filed a document dated 20.06.2004 being captioned as agreement said to have been entered into by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3/revision petitioners herein. The counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff raised an objection and submitted that the document is a relinquishment deed or memorandum of understanding and is compulsorily registerable. The Court below passed an order dated 22.01.2013 holding that the document dated 20.06.2004 is a relinquishment deed, which is compulsorily registerable. Against the same, the defendants No.1 to 3/revision petitioners filed the Civil Revision Case No. 3208 of 2013.

3. Thereafter, the revision petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit filed I.A.No.132 of 2013 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act with a prayer to send the document dated 20.04.2004 alleged to have been executed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to the District Registrar, Nalgonda for assessment and collection of stamp duty. The Court below dismissed the same by order dated 29.04.2013 stating that since by the order of this Court dated 22.02.2013, the document dated 20.06.2004 was held to be a relinquishment deed, and as such it is compulsorily registerable document and the same has become final. Against the same, the defendants No. 1 to 3/revision petitioners filed C.R.P.No.3199 of 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 submits that the document dated 20.06.2004 is only a receipt evidencing the payment of money and at the most it is a document recording past partition, as such, it is not a relinquishment deed which is not compulsorily registerable document. The Court below wrongly came to the conclusion that the document is a relinquishment deed and compulsorily registerable document. He further contends that a perusal of the document shows that it is executed recording the past partition and for the payment and no rights were relinquished by the plaintiff. The main purpose has to be seen and while recording the past transaction, it is only stated that first respondent/plaintiff received the amount and there is no relinquishment. In support of his contention, he relied upon a legal proposition reported in BANDIKATLA PADMAVATHI V. BANDIKATLA VEERA BRAHMA CHARI AND OTHERS (2013 (3) ALD 249).

5. He also contends that at any rate I.A.No.132 of 2013 filed for sending the document to District Registrar, Nalgonda for assessment and collection of stamp duty cannot be dismissed since Section 38 (2) of Indian Stamp Act clearly shows that an application filed for sending the document for compounding has to be allowed. He also contends that the document dated 20.06.2004 would be relied upon by the revision petitioners for collateral purpose and as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, eventhough the document is not registered, the same can be treated as evidence for any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. As such, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application for sending the document for impounding. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the legal propositions between MEHRUNNISA BEGUM V. M.A. KHADAR AND OTHERS (2011 (5) ALD 467), NUVVURU VENKATA SUBBA REDDY V. SK. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER (2002(1) An.W.R.393 (AP)) and M.A. BHUPATHI V. M. KOTESWARA MUDALI AND ANOTHER (1998(2) ALT 21)