The validity of the release deed and the legitimacy of the plaintiff as the son of the first defendant were central to the court's decision.

I. Disposition before lower court:-

The plaintiff, who filed a suit for partition of 1/6th share, was non-suited on the ground that he had not established that the first defendant was his father and further that the properties were available for partition.

II. Contentions of the plaintiff:-

2. The plaintiffs contention was that the first defendant had married a person by name Vedavalli and out of the said marriage, the plaintiff was born on 1. 1958. The first defendant had not taken care of his wife and even at the time when the plaintiff was in the womb, his mother left the matrimonial home and he was born only subsequent to the separation of the plaintiffs mother from the first defendant.

3. The basis of the claim for partition is that the first defendant and his two brothers, namely defendants 2 and 3, who are the sons of the Lakshmaiya Naidu constituted the members of the joint family and after their fathers death, the property is being enjoyed by the three sons and out of undivided 1/3 share of the first defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to, as a member of the co-parcenary an equal share, namely 1/6 share and seeks for a decree.

III. Contentions of the 1st defendant:-

4. The contest by the first defendant was on the ground that he had declined his right of the property by means of unregistered release through an instrument styled as family arrangement on 7. 1955 under Ex.B.8 and therefore he has not possessed any right in the property in which he claimed his share. His further contention is that the plaintiffs mother Vedavalli left the matrimonial house and was living with her sisters husband by name Mamoondi and the plaintiff had been born only to the said person. He was consequently not entitled to seek a claim in the said properties as a son of the first defendant.

IV. The reasoning of the trial court:-

5. The trial Court found that the release deed Ex.B.8 was true and the first defendant had not been possessed of any right in the property. As regards the issue whether the plaintiff is the legitimate son of the first defendant, the Court found that there was no necessity to enter into the said finding, having regard to the fact that there was no partible properties in which the plaintiff could claim a share.

V. The validity of alleged release, the critical issue:-

6. The crucial issue that has to be seen immediately is whether there are properties available for partition. Having regard to the contention that the first defendant had relinquished his share in the property on 7. 1955, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Ex.B.8, which was found to be true, was an unregistered and unstamped document and purporting to be an instrument relinquishing the right in the immovable property, whose value was more than Rs.100/-, which was required to be registered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act the document was not valid. It is further contended that the family arrangement contains recital of release and it is required to be written on stamped papers, as such, under the Indian Stamp Act.

7. The admissibility of Ex.B.8 has not been opposed at the time when the document was tendered for evidence. The recitals in Ex.B.8 read as follows:

TAMIL

8. The above recital clearly evidences a transaction of relinquishment in respect of immovable properties. It is noticed that the stamp duty has been collected on the instrument treating it as a receipt. Even otherwise if a document has been received without any objection as to the sufficiency of stamps, Section 36 of the Stamp Act prohibits any objection from being taken at any subsequent stage. The inadmissibility or otherwise of the transaction under the bar of Section 35 need not, in my view, deter from considering the admissibility of the document under the Registration Act.

9. Under section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document is seen to be a release and Section 17 Clause (1) Sub Clause (c) requires th