JUDGMENT :- The Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.97/l996 are appellants in this Second Appeal. The Respondent-Plaintiff had filed said suit claiming partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit property. The Defendants appeared and filed written statement at Exh.30. The trial court framed issues at Exh.31. Those are seven in number. The trial court after considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties decreed the suit with costs holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to get his one half share in the suit property by partition. The decree was directed to be sent to the District Collector under section 54 of Civil Procedure Code for effecting partition. Mesne profits were also directed under Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) of Civil Procedure Code. The judgment and decree is passed on July 26th. 2000. This judgment and decree was subject matter of challenge before the District Judge in appeal. It was Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2000 under Section 96 r/w Section 41 of Civil Procedure Code. The Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2000 was heard and disposed of by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nandurbar, Dist.-Dhule by its judgment and order passed on January 15th, 2005. The appeal filed by the Defendants came to be dismissed with costs. The said judgment and decree is under challenge in this second appeal filed by the Defendants. 2. The learned counsel Shri. C.R. Deshpande, for the Appellants, invited my attention to the grounds stated in memo of second appeal. According to him ground No.XII(A), which is reproduced herein below, is the ground involving substantial question of law; XII(A) Whether the findings and conclusion arrived at by both the courts below is perverse for the reason of non-consideration of the evidence of the deed placed on record at Exh.88. 3. Shri. Deshpande learned counsel while elaborating this ground i.e. XII(A) submitted that the interpretation of the document Exh. 88, is a substantial question of law. Copy of the document is annexed with the Civil Application as 'R-l'. The learned counsel Shri. Deshpande has made available the copy of paper book prepared by the Additional District Judge, Dhule. The Plaintiff in the suit has given genealogy which is not in dispute. A statement is made in paragraph 3 that land Gat No.46 corresponding old Survey No.4 7, admeasuring 7 Hector, 18 Aar situated at village Kalamba, Tal.-Nandurbar is ancestral joint family property of the parties. The Plaintiff in the suit has given genealogy which is not in dispute. A statement is made in paragraph 3 that land Gat No.46 corresponding old Survey No.4 7, admeasuring 7 Hector, 18 Aar situated at village Kalamba, Tal.-Nandurbar is ancestral joint family property of the parties. There was no partition amongst the members of the joint family consisting of Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the suit property. Mutation Entry 37 was obtained by the Defendant no.1 regarding the suit property and the record of rights of the suit property. Objection was raised regarding this mutation entry No.37 to the Tahsildar Nandurbar. The Tahsildar Nandurbar informed the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should approach Civil court seeking redressal and for adjudication of his rights. Therefore, the suit for partition and separate possession. 4. I have also perused the pleadings in the written statement at Exh. 13. It appears that the said written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant No.3. In paragraph 3 it is pleaded that the Defendants are residing separate and the Plaintiff since 20 to 21 years is residing at village Nawasapada, Tq.-Sakri, Dist.-Dhule. It is also pleaded that the suit property is self acquired property of the Defendants and Plaintiff or his father had no concern with the suit property. The father of the Plaintiff, according to the Defendants, died when the plaintiff himself was 6 months old. Mother of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was 7 months minor, left the plaintiff with the Defendants and married another person and is residing with the said person. There is no joint family of the Plaintiff and Defendants neither any property in the joint family. The Defendant No.1 being real uncle of the plaintiff has looked after the plaintiff and has raised the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. Specific pleading is raised in this paragraph 4 that "Plaintiff on September 27th, 1984 has given in writing on stamp paper of Rs.5/-. This writing was given by the Plaintiff in the presence of Chindha and Suka Kokani. Since then the Plaintiff is cultivating the suit property as a owner and is in possession thereof. 5. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties had framed 7 issues. In view of the grounds raised by Mr. Deshpande Issue No.3 framed and answered by the trial court is material. Since then the Plaintiff is cultivating the suit property as a owner and is in possession thereof. 5. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties had framed 7 issues. In view of the grounds raised by Mr. Deshpande Issue No.3 framed and answered by the trial court is material. Issue No.3 was in respect of alleged relinquishment of right by the plaintiff in the suit property on September 27th, 1984. Paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the trial court makes reference to the evidence of Defendant No.2 regarding writing on Stamp paper dated 27/9/1985. The trial court opined that the document Exh.88, dated 27/9/1984 is unregistered. Thus, this document is unregistered the trial court did not consider this document in favour of the Defendants and recorded finding on issue no.3 against the Defendants. In the appeal filed by the Defendants the first Appellate court had framed 5 points for determination. Amongst these points, the point No.2 is material. This point No.2 is about alleged relinquishment by the plaintiff of his share in the suit property by document dated 27/9/1984. No proof on this point seems to have been placed by the Defendants. The findings recorded is against the Defendants. The first appellate court in paragraph 14 of the judgment has referred to this document Exh.88 which undisputedly is on stamp paper of Rs.5/-. The court also noted the fact that it is unregistered document which otherwise is compulsorily registerable document under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act for the immovable property since it referred relinquishment of right in the immovable property worth more than Rs.I00/-. The court has referred to the oral evidence of D. W s.1, 2 and 3. The court opined that the document being unregistered cannot be read in evidence. Ultimately the court recorded finding that the defendants failed to prove the alleged relinquishment by the plaintiff in the suit property. 6. According to Shri. Deshpande the learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar V s. District Judge, Jaunpur and others [AIR 1996 ALLAHABAD 178]. According to Mr. Deshpande this judgment supports his contention that the plaintiff is now estopped under section 115 of the Evidence Act in view of the document Exh.88. According to Mr. Deshpande this judgment supports his contention that the plaintiff is now estopped under section 115 of the Evidence Act in view of the document Exh.88. From the judgment (Rajendra Kumar) it appears that there was dispute regarding shop between two parties. There was agreement between the Defendant No.1 and Vishwanath who had executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff on 1st March, 1970. It was also alleged that Vishwanath died and his legal representatives become tenant of the shop. Demand of rent from 1st April, 1973 to 31st January, 1975 at the rate of Rs. 40/- as against Rs.30/- was made, however, the Defendants did not pay the same. The plaintiff therein in that case terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for possession. The learned Single bench of the High Court in paragraph 7 noted that the petitioner in that case did not raise any objection in the court below regarding non-registration of the rent note and non-admissibility of the rent note in the evidence and did not contend that the suit can not be decreed on that basis. The learned Judge therefore held that in the absence of such objection the finding of the lower court that the rent note proved and relationship between parties is established. It is in this paragraph para 11 the learned Single bench has considered the provision laid down under Sections 115 and 116 and held that the Defendant therein in that case are estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. Mr. Deshpande the learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon another judicial pronouncement in the matter of Narendra Bahadur Tandon Vs. Shanker Lal (Since deceased) by Lrs. [AIR 1980 Supreme Court 575]. I have also perused the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Bahadur. The facts have been detailed by the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs as well as the Defendants appeared to proceed on the common understanding that the Defendants had succeeded to the interest of Patel Mills Ltd. in the leasehold interest. The court further proceeded we are, therefore, of the opinion that the Plaintiffs were estopped from contending that the Defendant had no interest in the land. The only right of the plaintiff was to receive the rent. 7. The court further proceeded we are, therefore, of the opinion that the Plaintiffs were estopped from contending that the Defendant had no interest in the land. The only right of the plaintiff was to receive the rent. 7. It is well settled that the judicial pronouncement have to be read and understood in the facts obtaining in such judicial pronouncement. In other words the Judicial pronouncement can not be read as a Statute. It is question which is decided by the court in the available facts, circumstances and evidence. If the superior court have interpreted the same section or provision of the Statute that, has to be considered in the background of the facts, circumstances and evidence available in the case. Both the judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel Shri. Deshpande broadly are on the premises of relationship of Landlord and Tenant and or Lessor and Leasee. In the case in hand the relationship between parties is not disputed. The Defendants contended that by the document Exh.88 plaintiff has relinquished his right in the suit property. It is not in dispute that this document Exh.88 is not a registered document. The document Exh.88 which is referred in its pleadings by the Defendant also seems to be a document of relinquishment of the right by the plaintiff. Copy of the document is produced alongwith Civil Application on the case in hand. I have examined the document. Nomenclature of the document is not important. The document in its entirety has to be considered. I have considered the document in its entirety and in the background of the pleadings made by the Defendants in paragraph 4 of the written statement. They have pleaded in clear words that the plaintiff has no right, title in the suit property. The plaintiff has executed stamp paper of Rs.5/- on 27/9/1984. Accordingly in the presence of two witnesses Mr. Chindha and Suka Dongrya Kokani. Thus Defendants claim that the document in question is document of relinquishment of right of the plaintiff in the suit property. This document in view of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act needs registration. 8. Shri. Magare the learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the some judicial pronouncement in support of his submissions that the document Exh. 88 being not registered cannot be read in evidence in view of Sections 17 and 49 even for collateral purposes. This document in view of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act needs registration. 8. Shri. Magare the learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the some judicial pronouncement in support of his submissions that the document Exh. 88 being not registered cannot be read in evidence in view of Sections 17 and 49 even for collateral purposes. It is in the matter of Babu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Babu (Dead) by L.Rs. [2003 AIR sew 6923]. I have considered the facts in the matter of Babu which are noted by the Supreme Court in paragraph 1 of its judgment. In Paragraph 20 the Supreme Court has observed the agreement and in paragraph 21 the Supreme Court has considered the provisions laid down under sections 17 and 49 of Indian Registration Act. It is observed by the Supreme Court that no lawful title can pass on to the mortgagee. Lawful title as well as legal possession of the land in question, therefore, remains with the landlord. Mr. Magare also relied upon the judgment of full bench of Patna High Court in the matter of Ashutosh Vs. Mohammad Yusuf Ali (FB) [AIR 1987 PATNA 102]. Section 17 of the Registration Act was considered by the Full Bench of Patna High Court. The Full Bench of Patna Court while considering the provisions in the background of the case obtaining in the matter of Ashutosh as referred the judgment of the Privy Council reported in [AIR 1929 PC 269] it is held by the Privy Council that "If an instrument which comes within S.17 as purporting to create by transfer an interest in immovable property is not registered, it cannot be used in any legal proceedings to bring about indirectly the effect which it would have had if registered. It is not to 'affect' the property and it is not to be received as evidence of any transaction 'affecting' the property". In view of the interpretation of this section 17 by the Privy Council as well as Supreme Court in the judicial pronouncement referred to above in my view the consideration of facts and circumstances of the case in hand the court below have legally and justifiably did not consider the document Exh.88 which is not admissible as a piece of evidence. 9. Shri. Deshpande, learned counsel has tried to address the court on section 115 of the Evidence Act. 9. Shri. Deshpande, learned counsel has tried to address the court on section 115 of the Evidence Act. According to him the Plaintiff is estopped because of this writing dated 27/9/ 1984. In his opinion this document - writing is a sort of compromise. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. I have also considered the provisions laid down under section 115 of Indian Evidence Act. It is not possible to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel Shri. Deshpande in the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the plaintiff is estopped and that too on the basis of unregistered document which in fact is contrary to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The ground raised by the appellant, therefore, that the interpretation of the document is substantial question of law cannot be accepted to be a ground involving a substantial question of law within the parameter of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. I do not find any other ground in the case in hand to be a ground involving substantial question of law. 10. The Second appeal therefore stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The Civil Application No.5715/2005 stands dismissed since the second appeal itself is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.