G. ILANGOVAN, J

1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 11/12/2024 passed in IA No.6 of 2024 in OS No.95 of 2021 by the Additional District Judge, Sivagangai.

2. The facts in brief:The suit plaintiffs in OS seeking No.95 of 2021 was filed by the the relief of declaration that the release deed, dated 10/04/2015 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant in document No.1125/2015 as null and consequential void prayers and for and for cancellation partition and other and separate filed written possession of 4 shares and costs.

3. Defendants entered appearance, statement and the trial commenced.

4. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff filed a chief in affidavit. On their side, 31 documents were marked.

5. When the disputed document, dated 10/04/2015 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant tried to be marked, it was objected by the respondents herein. So, to admit that disputed document as Ex.A2, a petition IA No.6 of 2024 was taken out stating that it is only an unregistered deed of acknowledgment of liability executed by the first defendant to the plaintiffs, by which the first defendant undertook a liability to give 5 cents of land each to the plaintiffs in consideration of the release deed executed by him. As promised by the first defendant, he did not give any property. Hence, the suit. Since the document is not compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act, it must be admitted in evidence.

6.It was contested by filing counter stating that the disputed document is compulsorily registrable under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, it cannot be termed as consent undertaking by the first defendant. Even in the release deed, dated 10/04/2015, no reference is made to the present document. Apart from that, the genuineness of the document is also disputed.

7. The trial court, after hearing both sides dismissed the petition finding that there is no reference in the release deed with regard to the present document showing the same as consideration for release; Further this can be constructed only as an agreement of exchange; The market value of the property is not mentioned; the stamp duty penalty could not be assessed by the court. By finding so, it dismissed the same.

8. Against which, this civil revision is preferred.

9. Heard the revision petitioners. In-spite of notice, none appears for the respondents 3, 10 and 11. So, their name is printed in the cause list.

10. Regarding the evidentiary value of the document, no discussion can be made, since it may not be proper. It is subject to the evidence to be let in by the parties. Regarding the admissibility of this document only, a finding can be recorded. Whether non-mentioning of the present document in the release deed, dated 10/04/2015 will affect the evidentiary value as well as the genuineness of the document is beyond the scop of the present issue. The trial court ought not to have entered into that issue now.

11. Regarding the admissibility, section 17 of the Registration Act can be extracted herein:-

“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.-(1)The shall be registered, following if the documents property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely,

(a)instruments of gift of immovable property; (b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport declare, or assign, operate limit to or create, extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether contingent, of the value rupees upwards, to and vested of or one in or hundred immovable property; [c]…. (d)…. (e)…. (2)Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to (i)… (ii)… (iii)… (iv)…. (v)any documents document specified other in than the sub-section (1-A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, interest; or title or

12. Reading of the proviso makes the position very clear. Now, we will go to the recitals of the document in the light of the proviso as to see whether it applies.

“எங்களுக்குக் கூறு, எண் பூர்வீகப் பாத்தியமான தென்னீர்வாயில் 24/3A பூஞ்சை தென்னீர்வாயில் கிராமம், ஹெக்டேர் சர்வே 0.58.5-க்கு ஏக்கர் 1.44 மற்றும் சர்வே எண் 24/3B பூஞ்சை ஹெக்டேர் 0.57.0-க்கு மொத்தம் ஏக்கர் ஏக்கர் 1.40, 2.84-ல் ஆக தங்களுக்கு உரிய

பிரிவின்றிப் பொதுவில் ஐந்தில் நான்கு பாகத்தை இன்றுள்ள தேதியில் நீங்கள் எனக்கு பாகப் பத்திரம் எழுதிக் கொடுத்து, தேவன்கோட்டை சார் பதிவ அலுவலகத்தில் 1-வது புத்தகம் —-/2015-ம் எண்ணாகப் பதிவு செய்து கொடுத்திருப்பதில்

மேற்படி பாகப் பாத்திய விடுதிக்குப் பிரதிபலனாக மேற்படி சர்வே எண் 24/3B-ல் இருந்து தலா 5 சென்ட் வீதம் மொத்தம் 20 சென்டில் கிரையப் பத்திரம் உங்களுக்கு மூலமாகவோ,

தான் செட்டில்மெண்ட் பத்திரம் மூலமாகவோ நீங்கள் வேண்டியபோது உங்கள் செலவில் பத்திரம் எழுதி அதில் என்னால் கையெழுத்து செய்து பதிவு செய்து கொடுக்க இதன் ஒப்புதல் மூலம் கொண்டிருக்கிறேன்.”

13. So, this clearly indicate that this squarely fit into the proviso 2(v) to section 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Registration Act. So, no more discussion is required as to the admissibility of the document.

14. Regarding the stamp duty, it was written in Rs.20/- stamp papers. As per Entry (j) to Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, it is prescribed as ”’20 rupees”’.

15. In the result, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed