An unregistered document purporting to relinquish an interest in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 is inadmissible and legally ineffective for transferring title under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2017 MADE IN R.A.NO.28/2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMDURG AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2015 MADE IN O.S.NO.119/2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMDURG AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, heard the arguments.

2. This is the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed in R.A.No.28/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.119/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramdurg (for short, ‘Trial Court’).

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The contention of plaintiff is that the defendant is the younger brother of plaintiff and both are children of one Dundappa Kolachi. During lifetime of their father, her father was looking after and managing the family properties. He died about two years prior to filing of the suit leaving behind plaintiff and defendant as his legal heirs. After the death of their father, plaintiff and defendants are enjoying possession of the suit schedule properties. Now, defendant is neglecting the plaintiff and avoided to part with agricultural produces. Hence, she approached defendant to effect partition. But, he refused to do so. Hence, the suit was filed.

5. After service of summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. Wherein, he denied the plaint averments and contented that plaintiff by receiving ₹35,000/- in the presence of elders has executed receipt dated 27.11.2006 and relinquished her right in suit schedule properties. She has received ₹35,000/- in lieu of her share in suit schedule properties. There is no cause of action to file the suit and hence prayed for dismissal of suit.

6. From the above facts, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule properties?

2) Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff is already received her share and given the receipt dated 27.11.2006 in the presence of elders.

3) What order or decree?

7. After framing the issues, recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds by not accepting the defence of defendant on the ground of title in respect of immovable property cannot be transferred by way of surrender or by way of any unregistered relinquishment deed.

8. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, defendant has preferred first appeal. The first appellate Court, after hearing arguments, came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and plaintiff is entitled for share by relying upon compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant-appellant is before this Court.

10. The admitted facts are that plaintiff and defendant