A universal release deed requires sufficient property identification for validity under Section 21(1) of the Registration Act; total absence of description renders it void.

ORDER :

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. In view of the conflicting judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 21 (1) of the Registration Act , 1908, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the Appeal Suit under Section 96 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC, dated 21.09.2023, had framed the following question for reference to the larger bench:

“Whether the registration of a universal release deed, which does not contain any description of property is void for not being no conformity with Section 21 (1) of the Registration Act ?”

2.The learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed their arguments in detail tracing the legislative intent of Section 21 of the Registration Act citing judicial pronouncements of the various High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3.Before adverting to the question referred, it is pertinent to state in brief the facts of case under consideration in the first appeal.

4.The suit for partition was filed by one of the daughters of Thiru.A.S.A.Rathnasamy Nadar, against her brothers and sisters questioning the validity of release deed, dated 20.05.1991 executed by her and others as void, since it is vague and illegal.

5.The respondents had contested the suit stating that there is no uncertainty or illegality in the release deed. The parties have understood the recital and acted upon the released deed dated 20.05.1991 and they are enjoying the properties as per the deed. The partition suit is filed 24 years after the release deed, hence, it is barred by limitation and also bad for partial partition. It was specifically contended by the defendants that after the release deed, the respective parties have acted in terms of the release deed, therefore the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the validity of the release deed.

6.The trial Court after examination of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit on the ground of estoppel and limitation. Challenging the same, the Appeal Suit is filed by the aggrieved plaintiff.

7.In the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the deed of release marked as Ex.A3 in this case, does not contain any description of the immovable properties covered therein. Therefore, the very registration of the document is void in view of the non-compliance of the mandate set out under Section 21 of the Registration Act .

8.The learned Judges after hearing the above submission and after referring the following judgments, to highlight the divergent views of the Court, referred the matter to larger bench, framing the question for consideration:

1. Valliammal vs. Tamil Selvi [A.S.No.189 of 2013 etc, batch dated 16.12.2022];

2. Hoosein Abdul Rehman vs. Lakhmichand Khetsey [AIR 1925 Bombay 34];

3. T.Shankaranarayan Nair vs. Achuthan Nair [1982 KLJ 61];

4. Paul Varghese Vs. C.C.Annie [2020 SCC Online Kerala 24100];

5. P.A.J.Seetharamam Raju vs. Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agency Department [ 1962 (75) LW 358 ];

6. Saiyed vs. Muhammad [1909 31 All 523];

7. Thomas vs. Sub Registrar [2025 SCC Online Ker 563];

8. Sab Mukhun Lall vs. Sah Koondun [1875 2 IA 210].

9.As the reason for referring the matter to larger bench, the Division Bench has observed as below:

“17.In our experience, we notice that invariably such universal releases are obtained only from female members of the family. The male members of the family want to deprive the female members of their right in the family properties