JUDGMENT-This appeal arises from the suit filed. by .the plaintiffs, who are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before me, for possession of survey No. 92 of mauza Kopadi. The following facts are no more in dispute. One Ramji, the grandfather of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of plaintiff No.3, was at the relevant time the owner of this survey number. He died in the year 1941 leaving him surviving his widow Bainabai, plaintiff No.3, and two sons Deorao and Bhaurao, who are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in the suit. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Pralhad and Dnyaneshwar, are the sons. of Deorao. There was a partition of the joint family estate on December 31, 1951, whereunder the joint family properties were partitioned between Deorao and Bhaurao. As a result of this partition, the suit field along with other properties came to the share of Bhaurao. On January 5, 1952, Bhaurao sold away the suit field to defendant No. I, who is the appellant before me, for the sum of Rs. 2,500. Subsequent to this sale deed, on March 26, 1952, there was a partition between Deorao, defendant No.2, and his two sons, Pralhad and Dnyaneshwar, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, whereunder the properties, which came to the share of Deorao under the partition dated December 31, 1951, were divided by metes and bounds between Deorao and his two sons. In this partition, as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were then minors, Bainabai acted as their guardian. The present suit was filed in the year 1956 by the two sons of Deorao and Bainabai, the mother of Deorao. The reliefs asked for in the suit are that the partition dated December 31, 1951, between Deorao and Bhaurao is not binding on the plaintiffs, as under the said partition no share was allotted to the mother Bainabai. Secondly, the alienation made by Bhaurao of the suit field in favour of defendant No.1 was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, and lastly there was a prayer for possession. 2. The case of defendant No.1 was that the partition effected on December 31,1951, between Deorao and Bhaurao was a valid partition. Secondly, the alienation made by Bhaurao of the suit field in favour of defendant No.1 was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, and lastly there was a prayer for possession. 2. The case of defendant No.1 was that the partition effected on December 31,1951, between Deorao and Bhaurao was a valid partition. In fact, Bainabai plaintiff No.3, had orally relinquished her interest in the joint family properties in favour of her two sons, Deorao and Bhaurao, after the death of Ramji, and that is why no share was allotlied to Bainabai when the joint family properties were divided between the two sons, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and the sale effected by Bhaurao in favour of defendant No.1 was binding on the plaintiffs. 3. The trial Court accepted the contentions of defendant No. 1 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It held that after the death of Ramji, Bainabai had orally relinquished her interest in the joint family properties and the partitions effected between defendants, Nos. 2 and 3 on December 31, 1951, was valid and binding. The plaintiffs came in appeal from this decision of the that Court dismissing the suit. The appellate Court has modified the decree that has been passed by the learned trial Judge. It held that the partition dated December 31, 1951, was a valid partition. However, it took the view that it was not established that Bainabai had orally relinquished her interest in the joint family properties after the death of Ramji and that was the reason why no share was allotted to her when the joint family properties were partitioned between the two brothers Deorao and Bhaurao. It further held that relinquishment of interest in the joint family properties, which consists of immovable properties, can only be made by a registered deed if the interest to be relinquished is worth more than Re. 100. Such relinquishment cannot be made orally and, as in the present case, there was no registered deed, Bainabai had not legally relinquished her interest in the joint family properties to which she was entitled. The appellate Court, therefore, modified the decree in view of the said finding stated above. It is from this decision of the learned Additional District Judge that defendant No.1 has come in appeal to this Court. 5. Mr. The appellate Court, therefore, modified the decree in view of the said finding stated above. It is from this decision of the learned Additional District Judge that defendant No.1 has come in appeal to this Court. 5. Mr. Gandhe, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the applicant, has contended before me that there is a patent error in the decision arrived by the learned Additional District Judge, that he has come to the conclusion that Bainabai did not relinquish her interest in the joint family properties without appreciating the proper provision of law and the admitted facts on record, and secondly the learned Additional District Judge was in error in proceeding on the assumption that there can be no oral relinquishment. In my opinion, each one of these contentions must be upheld . 6. The question then arises whether it is open to the mother to relinquish her interest in the joint family properties orally when the joint family properties consist of immovable properties like the suit fields and the value of her share therein is more then Rs. 100. Mr. Deshpande drew my attention to the case reported in Dattatraya Govind v. Narayan Gangaram (I). It was held by Vivian Bose J, in that case that "Except in the ease of partition among the members of a joint Hindu family, where the unities of possession, interest, title and time are complete and excepts in the case of entrance to a religious order involving complete and except renunciation of the world, no person can divest himself of interest which to a religious which have once vested in him by a mere disclaimer. A title once divested only by a recognized conveyance or one of the other means allowed by law. It cannot pass by admission, relinquishment, or disclaimer when the law requires a deed. This case does not lay down that relinquishment cannot be made orally. All that it says is that the title once vested can be divested only by, recognized conveyance or by one of the other means allowed by law. It further Months the title once vested cannot pass by re1inquishment when the law require. it a deed. What has to be seen is whether the law requires that relinquishment can only be made by deed or by an instrument. The transfer of Property Act clearly recognizes oral transfers. It further Months the title once vested cannot pass by re1inquishment when the law require. it a deed. What has to be seen is whether the law requires that relinquishment can only be made by deed or by an instrument. The transfer of Property Act clearly recognizes oral transfers. Section 9 of the Act makes writing is not expressly required by law." It follows of therefore, that an oral transfer of property is the rule unless there is a law which expressly requires. That at it should be made in writing. The Transfer of Property Act makes writing necessary the case of various transfers. Under section 54; a sale of tangible immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or upward if or of a reversion Dar on the intangible thing is required to be made only by registered instrument.. Under section 59, a Writing is necessary in the case of a simple mortgage or in the case of all other mortgages except a mortgage by deposit of title deeds where the principal sum secured is Rs. 100 or upwards: Under section 107, a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or relerving a yearly rent, is required to be made in writing. Under, section 123, a gift of immovable property can only be made by a writing. Under section 130, all transfers of actionable claims have to be made by writing and, under section 118, all exchanges are subject to the same rules as are applicable to sales. Thus, when the law requires that there should be an instrument in writing and that instrument must be registered, the transfer can only be effected in that manner. But where no writing is required by the Transfer of Propertv Act or any other law, the transfer may be made orally. Mr. Deshpande is unable to point out any statute which requires that the relinquishment by the mother of her interest in the joint family property, when the property consists of immovable property and the value of the share therein exceeds Rs. 100, can only be made in writing or by an instrument registered. 7. Mr. Deshpande is unable to point out any statute which requires that the relinquishment by the mother of her interest in the joint family property, when the property consists of immovable property and the value of the share therein exceeds Rs. 100, can only be made in writing or by an instrument registered. 7. In Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank, Limited (2), Rankin C. J. said that partition, release and surrender are all forms of transfer but that so far as the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, they come under ,no restrictions. A right to recover a share of immovable property may be relinquished orally and without an instrument in writing. 8. Mr. Deshpande, however, drew my attention to the provisions of , section 17 of the Registration Act. There is nothing in the Registration Act, the provisions ? if section 17 thereof, which requires any particular transaction to are so be recorded in writing. That Act requires only that when certain transactions are so recorded, the writing shall be registered. There is nothing in the Transfer of Property Act or any other law that I am so far aware which requires that a mere extinguishment of an interest in the immovable property slla11 be in writing. The relinquishment by Bainabai of her interest in the joint family property was merely abandonment of her interest in the joint family property in favour of her two sons. Such a relinquishment or abandonment of interest in the joint family property, even though it consists of immovable properties and is of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards, can be effected without a written instrument, though if one is executed, it would undoubtedly require registration under section 17 of the Registration Act: Gauri Bai v. Gaya Bai (1) . 9. Thus, the oral relinquishment by Bainabai of her interest in the joint. family properties in favour of her two sons after the death of Ramji was valid, and effective in law. Since the time of that relinquishment she ceased to have, any interest in the joint family properties. The learned Additional District Judge was in error in taking the view that an oral relinquishment, even if proved, would not divest Bainabai of her interest in the joint family pro perties. 10. Since the time of that relinquishment she ceased to have, any interest in the joint family properties. The learned Additional District Judge was in error in taking the view that an oral relinquishment, even if proved, would not divest Bainabai of her interest in the joint family pro perties. 10. In the result, the partition, dated December 31, 1951, between, Deorao and Bhaurao was a valid and effective partition where under each one of the two brothers became entitled to the properties that were respectively allotted to them. It is not in di.spute that the suit field was allotted to Bbaurao under the said partition and Bhaurao has sold it to the present defendant No. l in the year 1952. In the result Bainabai is not entitled to any interest in the suit field. 11. The appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge declaring that Bainabai had 1/3rd share in the suit field and that she was entitled to recover possession of that share from defendant No.1 is set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal Allowed