1. When the petitioners in CRP.No.455 of 2017 had attempted to introduce an unregistered partition cum release deed dated 07.04.1978 in evidence, the first respondent herein/plaintiff had raised her objections through a memorandum, objecting to the marking of the unregistered document dated 07.04.1978 on the ground that the said instrument is impermissible to be admitted in evidence, in view of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said objections were countered by the petitioners herein, stating that a family arrangement does not require registration and the insufficient stamp duty can be cured by payment of penalty and therefore insisted for having the said document marked. The objections raised by the first respondent/plaintiff was sustained through an order dated 20.01.2017, which is impugned in the CRP.No.455 of 2017.

2. Pending the present Civil Revision Petition, the defendants 2 and 3 filed an application in I.A.No.498 of 2018 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking for an expert opinion on the genuinity of the left thumb impression (LTI) in the release deed dated 07.04.1978, which came to be rejected by an order dated 18.04.2018, which is in challenge in CRP.No.2035 of 2018.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions revolves around the validity and admissibility of the release deed dated 07.04.1978, both the civil revision petitions are disposed through a common order.

4. The submissions of the petitioners' counsel in both the civil revision petitions are that the Release Deed dated 07.04.1978 is permissible in evidence, if the marking of the same, is for a collateral purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they intend to mark the document before the trial Court, only for the purpose of establishing their possession over the suit properties and since such the purpose is a collateral one, there is no embargo for having the said document marked in evidence. It is their further submission that since the first respondent herein had denied her signature in the release deed at the time of cross examination, it becomes pertinent to have the opinion of an expert by comparing her signature in the release deed with her admitted signatures. On such grounds, the orders impugned in both the civil revision petitions were challenged.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand submitted that, through the release deed dated 07.04.1978, the petitioners intend to establish that the first respondent herein had extinguished her right and title over the suit properties. By relying upon the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the learned counsel submitted that the release deed cannot be looked into or admitted into evidence.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

7. Since the issue in both the civil revision petitions revolve around the release deed dated 07.04.1978, the recitals therein are briefly extracted hereunder:-

(a)The plaintiff is the daughter of Subbia Gounder and Ramathal.

(b)The plaintiff is entitled for a share over the properties of Subbia Gounder and Ramathal.

(c)Pursuant to the claim of share made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs.5000/- in the presence of Panchayatars.

(d)In consideration of sum of Rs.5000/-, the plaintiff releases her right and title of share over the properties of Subbia Gounder and Ramathal.

(e)Henceforth, neither the plaintiff nor her legal representatives shall have any share or relationship in the properties of Subbia Gounder and Ramathal.

(f)Henceforth, Subbia Gounder and Ramathal can possess and enjoy their properties without any interruption from the plaintiff.

8. The defendants had produced the original release deed dated 07.04.1978, along with their proof affidavit, which came to be objected through a memorandum filed by the plaintiff questioning the marking of this document