Registration Act | Relinquishment Of Right In Property Valued Above ₹100 To Be Compulsorily Registered: Gujarat High Court

The Bench comprising Justice Umesh Trivedi was hearing a petition under Article 227 wherein the Petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, dismissing her share in her father's property, said to be acquired by the State of Gujarat.

The Petitioner stated that after the demise of her father, the compensation in respect of acquisition was awarded to Respondent No. 4.1, i.e., her brother, who was looking after the reference proceedings along with the Petitioner. The executing Court also refusing to recognize her 50% share in the compensation awarded and rejected her application.

The High Court noted that she was a claimant along with her brother throughout the reference case and at no point of time did the brother oppose the entitlement of the compensation award in her favour. However, during the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Respondent opposed grant of her share on the ground that the Petitioner had waived her rights in the properties vide an affidavit in 2011.

Primarily, the Petitioner relied on Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908 which mandates that the relinquishment of right to be registered compulsorily if the value of property is not disputed to be more than Rs. 100. Reference was also made to Section 49 which provides that if any document requiring compulsory registration is not registered, then such document cannot be treated as evidence in any transaction affecting such property.

In the instant case, the relinquishment deed of 2011 could not be taken into consideration since the document was not registered under the Act of 1908, it was argued.

Per contra, Respondent No. 4.1 contested that the Petitioner had voluntarily relinquished her right to the property and therefore, she could not claim any amount which has been awarded because of the acquisition of the property.

Affirming the contention of the Petitioner party, the Bench remarked that Section 49 required compulsory registration which was absent in the instant case. Concerning the relinquishment deed, the High Court observed:

"However, the document i.e. affidavit, relinquishing right in specific properties, does not reflect that she has relinquished her right to all the properties of her father, which is inherited by her nor it is a document in respect of any family arrangement being made between the parties, the registration thereof is not required. Thus, the document on which reliance is placed by the respondent No. 4.1 to deny her right to compensation for her share, cannot be taken into consideration at all."

Thus, the High Court directed the Reference Court to consider Petitioner's share and pass appropriate order in the execution proceedings thereafter.

Case Title: MADHUKANTABEN D/O SOMABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216