IMPORTANT POINT
A release deed executed by heirs, without compliance with statutory requirements of property registration, is invalid and does not affect the heirs' rights.

JUDGMENT :

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 2^nd defendant in O.S. No.60/2017 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Kottayam are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 2^nd defendant are the daughters and the 1^st defendant is the son of late Perumal, who died intestate on 25.9.1985. His wife Madathiammal died on 18.5.1986. The 3^rd defendant is the Special Tahsildar (LA) Railway, Kottayam, who is impleaded only as a formal party, as the compensation in respect of acquisition of the scheduled property is to be disbursed by him. Admittedly, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased Perumal and they are governed by Hindu Succession Act .

3. Though the parties originally belong to Tamil Nadu, now they are settled in Kottayam District. Late Perumal left behind major part of his properties in the State of Tamil Nadu and plaint schedule property consisting of 1.21 Ares is the only property left behind by him outside the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also admitted that late Perumal and his wife died intestate. It was in the above context, the plaintiff preferred this suit for partition, claiming that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get ¼ share each from the schedule property. Since the schedule property was acquired by Railway, the compensation due on the said property is now in the hands of 3^rd defendant.

4. The 1^st defendant filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule property is not partible, as about 30 years back, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 2^nd defendant released their right in the schedule property in favour of the 1^st defendant after receiving a consideration of Rs.2,000/- each and executed registered Release Deed in favour of the 1^st defendant. Therefore, the 1^st respondent prayed for dismissing the suit. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement supporting the plaint and claiming ¼ share from the schedule property.

5. In the light of the above pleadings, the trial court framed three issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and Exhibits A1 to A7 and B1 to B10. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with the 2^nd defendant preferred this appeal.

6. Now, the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with the 2^nd defendant released their share in the plaint schedule property in favour of the 1^st defendant as per Exhibit B2 document?

2) Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 2^nd defendant are entitled to get any share from the scheduled property?

7. Heard Sri. Jacob E. Simon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.K. Haridas, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader Smt. Shylaja on behalf of the 3^rd respondent.

8. Admittedly, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Late Perumal and Madathiammal, who died intestate in 1985 and 1986 respectively. It is also admitted that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.21 Ares of property comprised in Re- Survey No.45 (Old Sy No.67/1A/4 of Muttambalam Village (earlier in Nattasseri Village)), belonged to late Perumal. The fact that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are governed by the Hindu Succession Act , is also not disputed. The contention taken by the 1^st defendant is that by virtue of Exhibit B2 Partition Title Release Deed dated 4.2.1988 of Alangulam Sub Registry, the plaintiffs 1 and 2