The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for registration of documents dealing with immovable properties under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and the inadmissibility of unregistered documents for proving transactions relating to immovable property.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, A.S.No.6 of 2003 in confirming the judment and decree dated 28.2.2002 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in O.S.No.13 of 1999, which was filed for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the suit mentioned properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(a) The brief narration of the relevant facts as found set out in the plaint is to the effect that the deceased plaintiff-Ammamuthu Ammal, being the daughter of Parasurama Mudaliar and Amaravathi Ammal, was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties, as the suit properties are the absolute properties of Amaravathy Ammal.D1 and his sons D2 to D4 resisted the suit by filing written statement.

(b) Whereupon issues were framed. The original plaintiff on her side examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The defendants on their side examined the first defendant as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 to D.W.4 and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked.

(c) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit by giving a finding that the said Ammamuthu Ammal relinquished her share in the suit properties, as per the unregistered Release Deed-Ex.B13 dated 25.9.1975.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court with a finding that the non-registration of the said document Ex.B13 was not fatal because it contained only a family arrangement.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, the second appeal has been filed on various grounds, inter alia thus: Ex facie and prima facie, Ex.B13-the Release Deed contains averments to the effect as though the plaintiff- Ammamuthu Ammal relinquished all her rights in the suit properties, consequent upon a compromise arrived at in a Panchayat. Wherefore the said document should have been registered. However, the Courts below fell into error in holding that the said document was not invalid for want of registration, ignoring Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, which squarely applies to Ex.B13.

5. While admitting the second appeal, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1) Whether the Courts below are right in law in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of Exhibit B.13 an unregistered release deed, which deals with immovable properties worth more than Rs.100/-?

2) Whether in law the Courts below are right in taking into consideration Exhibit B13, to dismiss the suit, when the said document is inadmissible and hit by the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act?

(extracted as such)

6. Heard both sides.

7. Both the Substantial Questions of Law are taken together for discussion, as they are interwoven and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with each other.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would reiterate the grounds of appeal and also cite precedents in support of his contention that Ex.B13 was bad for want of registration.

9. In an attempt to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the contesting defendants would contend that the appellate Court was right in holding that Ex.B13 contains only the terms of compromise arrived at the Panchayat and as such, it was only a family arrangement, requiring no registration as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

10. The learned counsel for the impleaded respondent also w