The order in revision is of 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda. The petitioner is aggrieved by the learned Court rejecting the request of the petitioner (defendant No.1 in the suit) for marking document referred to in the evidence affidavit of the petitioner as Exhibit B2.

2. Exhibit B2 is the original notarized deed of relinquishment dated 02.04.2013 said to have been executed by the respondent (plaintiff) in favour of the petitioner (defendant No.1). The learned Court was of the view that since the document is compulsorily registerable under law, it cannot be received in evidence to prove the issue of title.

3. The respondent (plaintiff) relies on Sections 17 and 49 of The Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). While Section 17(1) of the Act makes registrations of certain documents compulsory, Section 49 of the Act stipulates that no document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered under Section 49(c) of the Act.

4. The provision to Section 49 of the Act however constitutes an exception to the Section where