1. Admit. The instant Second Appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the rival parties.

2. The following substantial question of law arises for my consideration, after hearing the learned counsel for rival parties :

Whether the Courts below erred in law in not exhibiting the document styled as 'Deed of relinquishment without consideration’ dated 30th March, 1992 filed along with list Exh.61 in RCS No. 128/2009 for want of registration and, if yes, whether the proceedings are required to be remitted to the trial Judge? ..Yes.

3. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties for quite some time. Perused the deed of relinquishment without consideration dated 30th March 1992. Both the Courts below have held that the said document required registration and since it was not registered, it was not admissible and was not exhibited. As a result it was not proved and remained a unproved documents with the list Exh.61.

4. I have gone through the document carefully. What I find from the said document is that Dadu @ Jairam Sahare and Harichand Sahare, the real brothers, stated in the document that they had ancestral property at Mouza Jabbartola and Mouza Khairbodi. Both of them had mutually effected partition number of years before and accordingly Dadu @ Jairam having received the allotted share, also sold the land of his share. It is also stated that 0.20R area of land out of Gut No. 648, 0.81R of Mouza Khairbodi was sold to one Patiram Chaudhari. It is further stated that therefore, he has no right/title over the lands described in the document executed by him in any manner. Therefore, though Talathi record shows the names of the two brothers jointly in respect of the said lands mentioned in the document, Dadu @ Jairam has given up his right, title and interest in those lands in favour of his brother Harichand.

It is further declared that, therefore, Harichand would be the exclusive owner of the agricultural land described and accordingly the entries should be corrected/deleted/modified solely in the name of Harichand Sahara for which Dadu @ Jairam had no objection.

Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus :

“17(1): The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely, (a) ......

(b) other nontestamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

(c) ............... ........”

Undoubtedly, a superficial reading of the said document shows that it declares, creates and extinguishes the right, title and interest and also vests in relation to immovable property value of which is above Rs. 100/.

The document, in fact, records a very material fact that years before both the brothers made oral partition of their ancestral property and took their respective shares and not only that Dadu @ Jairam even sold his share. That was why he did not want to exercise any right over the property mentioned in the document as he acknowledged that the property was of Harichand. Therefore, it is not that by this very document right/title/interest was created or extinguished.

But the recitals which I have quoted earlier, clearly show that the right, title and interest vesting or extinguishment was all done in the previous or past years and the mention thereof only is found in the present documents by way of acknowledgment of past event of partition which was acted upon or the notes. It is thus clear that the present document does not itself inherently divest, vest, extinguish any right, title or interest in any of the par