An unregistered relinquishment agreement does not confer title over property, and legal heir rights must be respected in partition suits.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in O.S.873/95. The suit for partition is filed by one of the children of Velayudhan Chettiar. The first defendant is the mother of defendants 2 to 8. Or in other words plaintiff and D2 to D8 are the children of Velayudhan Chettiar and D1 is his widow. A suit for partition is filed with respect to six schedules of property, i.e. A to F. The contesting defendants namely defendants 1 to 3 and 8 had raised the contention with respect to the properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the written statement contending that there had been an agreement between the sharers on 2.1.91 as per which the other sharers have relinquished their right in favour of the 2nd defendant Radhakrishnan. The signatories to the written statement are D1, Thulasi Ammal, D4 Sreenivasan and D8 Santhakumari. As per paragraph 2 it is submitted the shop room in Patturakkal junction and Krishnaji Stores are not partible. It is contended that those properties are released in favour of 2nd defendant.

2. The next contention is with respect to E schedule which is a land acquisition compensation amount. It is contended that the first defendant got only Rs.4,50,000/- after deducting the advocate's fees etc. and of which one half belonged to D1 exclusively and when the other half is equally divided into 9 the plaintiff will be entitled to only Rs.26,763/- and that has been paid. The F schedule is also said to be not partible as per the extraction in the judgment.

3. Now let me first deal with the contention with respect to the property described in D schedule. Admittedly it belonged to Velayudhan Chettiar, on his death it had devolved upon his legal representatives. It is not disputed. The contention is that the legal representatives of Velayudhan Chettiar had executed an agreement whereby the property mentioned in Ext.B3 is set apart to Sri. Radhakrishnan and therefore that property is not partible. The plaintiff and the other defendants do not admit the execution of Ext.B3. Ext.B3 is an unregistered agreement purporting to be a surrender deed executed by the legal representatives of Velayudhan Chettiar other than D2 in favour of D2. It is also recited that the consideration for the said release is Rs.62,300/-. The plaintiff has totally denied execution of Ext.B3. He had denied his signature in Ext.B3. There are two attesting witnesses to the document and those witnesses had not been examined by the contesting defendants. No step is also seen taken in order to compare the signatures of the plaintiff with that in Ext.B3. Further it has also to be stated when there is a release of property for more than Rs.100/- value it is a compulsory registrable document and without registration it will not confer title on the person by that document. It may be a case at the most it can be used for collateral purposes. But as far as this case is concerned the execution of Ext.B3 is not properly proved and so that also does not arise. So the learned trial judge held that Ext.B3 cannot be said to be proved in this case. When it is so then the plaintiff and other defendants certainly shall have right over the property and therefore the finding with respect to D schedule does not call for any interference.

4. Now we consider about E schedule. E schedule is with respect to apportionment of amount received as compensation from the Land Acquisition Authority. It is for Rs.6,20,931/-. The property stood in the name of Velayudhan Chettiar and D1. So the trial court found that out of this Rs.6,20,931/- even if Rs.20,931/- is set apart for the purpose of advocate's fees etc. six lakhs would be available out of which Rs.3 lakhs belonged to the half share of the mother and the remaining three lakhs is then have to be divided into nine and each sharer will be entitled to Rs.33,331/- out of which only Rs.26,763/- is seen paid to the plaintiff. So the Court held that an amount of Rs.6,570/