IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION.NO.2001 OF 2023

BETWEEN :

1. Y.Chandrashaker Gupta and others

… Petitioner/Defendant Nos.1 to 4

AND

1. Smt. Rajeshwaramma, W/o. Chandramohan,

Aged 51 years, Occ: Tailoring,

R/o. H.No.2-5-8 of Vepugari Locality,

Mahabubnagar Town. …Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Sri P.Prabhakara Chary, S/o.Saibaba Chary,

Aged 48 years, Occ: Realtor,

R/o.Nijalpur Village, Musapet,

Addakal (M), Mahabubnagar.

3. Vadla Ramanand, S/o.Ramachandraiah,

Aged 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Kandeelly (V), Tandoor (M), Rangareddy.

4. Shyamalamma, W/o. Hanmanthu,

Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Nijalapur Village, Addakal, Mahabubnagar.

…Respondents/Defendant Nos.5 to 7

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Docket Order dated 14.06.2023 passed in OS.No.102 of 2014 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar wherein it is held that the document dated

05.11.1996 does not require registration.

2. Petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.5 to 7 in OS.No.102 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that the learned trial Court wrongly came to a conclusion that the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement but not relinquishment deed. The Court below came to a conclusion that the intention of the parties is to settle the dispute between the elders and the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement. On the face of the record document dated 05.11.1996 is a relinquishment deed therefore requires registration, in support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Akula Sangappa Vs. Bandam Siddappa, Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/39930168/ (2) B.Raghupathi Vs. M.Hari, Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/22785270/ and prayed to set aside the order by allowing the Revision. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein-defendant Nos.6 and 7 and in support of his contention relied on the decision in the case of Jinesh Jain Vs. Amit Jain and Others, 2025 LawSuit(Del) 1414

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein-defendant Nos.5 to 7 are formal parties to the Civil Revision Petition.

5.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit against the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.2 to 4- defendant Nos.5 to 7 for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the schedule property admeasuring 60 Sq.yards consisting of three shops and its court yard covered with compound wall bearing Municipal Door No.2-5-8 of Vepurigari area of Mahabubnagar town and also for mesne profits of past and future till delivery of possession from 28.06.2013 onwards.

5.2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has stated in Para (c) of the plaint that ”During the pendency of the issue of construction permission proceedings, the defendant Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) who are totally strangers and nothing to do with the property with the intervention of hooligans, took an amount of Rs.22,000/- forcibly and executed a relinquishment deed dated 05.11.1996 in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff’s mother by name Indiramma by taking advantage of her weakness”.

5.3. Plaint further goes to show that grandfather of the plaintiff by name Papaiah is having two daughters namely Satyamma who is the mother of defendant Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) and Indiramma who is the mother of respondent No.1- plaintiff. Papaiah has executed a will deed in favour of Indiramma in respect of the property admeasuring 204.15 Sq.yrds in Municipal No.2-5-8 on 29.06.1981. Through the said will Indiramma has became the ow