ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders passed on 02.03.2022 in I.A.No.252 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents here are the defendants in O.S.No.64 of 2015. The plaintiffs got filed Suit vide O.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, for a direction to the 1st defendant to execute the regular sale deed in fovour of the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.

3. In the said suit, the present interlocutory application has been filed vide I.A.No252 of 2021 by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 13 Rule 8 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court below to send the document dated 27.09.1983 to the District Registrar for impounding the same.

4. The petitioners’ contention is that the petitioners’ father purchased the property from the respondents and possession also was delivered on the same day, and the respondents/ defendants executed document in favour of the petitioners’ father Lakshumaiah and the said document has been filed in this case. But, due to some technicalities, the said document was not marked. As such, filed the present Application to send the document for impounding.

To the said interlocutory application, the respondents/ defendants filed their counter opposing the said application stating that in the written statement, it was clearly, contended that the suit relinquishment agreement is forged and fabricated one and the defendant never executed the same and never received any consideration from the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. It is only relinquishment agreement, but not sale agreement and thus any document for relinquishment of rights must be registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar and thus, this document shall not be sent to the District Registrar for impounding of document. As such, prayed to dismiss the application.

Upon hearing, the court below dismissed the said application under its order dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by same the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Velagan Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds contended that, the Court below failed to see that the subject document is relinquishment deed executed between the family members and through the said document the 1st defendant relinquished his rights.

It is further contended that, dismissing the Application filed for sending the said document for impounding, is unjustified and the Court below, without assigning any proper reasons has erroneously dismissed the said Application.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Yellapu Uma Meheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao1 and accordingly, prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that, if the said document is pressed into service only for collateral purpose, no registration is required. However, it should be sufficiently stamped. As the said document is not sufficiently stamped, it should be impounded.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st defendant contended that the subject document is a relinquishment deed. Even according to the petitioners/plaintiffs they are claiming share in the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances Section 17 of the Registration Act will attract, for which the said document is compulsory registerable. Once the document is compulsorily registerable it cannot be cured whereas in the case of stamp duty it can be cured by sending it for (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 787 impounding. The reason for asking to send the suit document is for the primary purpose of claiming share and the said transaction requires registration. As such, the Court rightly dismissed the A