JUDGMENT: The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They assail the docket order dated 02-02-2011 by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.S.No.1 of 2005. A document purported to be a release deed executed by one Vittal Reddy was sought to be marked by the defendants. The plaintiffs objected to the same on the ground that the document is unregistered and unstamped. After hearing the objections, the learned District Judge, placing reliance upon Venku Bai v. Faju Bai @ Rajeshwaramma [ 1987 (1) ALT 360 ] held that the document was admissible in evidence and that it was not a document which requires compulsory registration. This is the order that is assailed before me. 2. Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants 1, 3, 8 and 12, took me through the document in question and submitted that the document purports to speak about past transactions and that such past transactions in a document do not require registration. 3. The document reads that it was a release deed of ancestral property. The document recites that an extent of about Ac.4-00 of land was delivered to Vittal Reddy prior to the execution of the document in question. The document further reads that the executant, viz., Vittal Reddy, was relinquishing or releasing all his rights over his share in the ancestral property. 4. As rightly submitted by Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this document indeed refers to past transaction but relates to the releasing of the rights as of today. It is not a partition list or a document speaking about past transactions. I consider that this document extinguished the rights of Vittal Reddy over his share of the joint family properties. Consequently, the document is liable to stamp duty as well as registration. 5. In Venku Bai v. Faju Bai@ Rajeshwaramma [ 1987 (1) ALT 360 ] relied upon by the learned trial Judge, the Court observed that relinquishment deed need not be registered when it did not extinguish the rights of the parties. However, it is held long ago in Rami Reddi v. Ella Reddi (1961 (1) An.W.R. 16 (NRC) (FB)), that when rights pertaining to immoveable property are relinquished through a document, the document is compulsorily registerable and that if the document is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. 6. However, it is held long ago in Rami Reddi v. Ella Reddi (1961 (1) An.W.R. 16 (NRC) (FB)), that when rights pertaining to immoveable property are relinquished through a document, the document is compulsorily registerable and that if the document is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. 6. In a recent case in Vangala Laxmamma v. Pasham Narsi Reddy ( 2010 (3) ALT 165 ), a learned single Judge of this Court has pointed out that when the document purports to relinquish the rights of a party in joint family property in respect of moveable and immoveable properties, and where such a document was not a case of recording of a past transaction, the document would be liable to be registered. 7. In the present case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants, past transactions have been referred to in the document in question. However, the main purport of the document is the present transaction of Vittal Reddy relinquishing his rights in the joint family properties. It being a case of transfer of property, the document in question is compulsorily registerable. 8. Consequently, the docket order of the trial court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. It is held that the document in question is a compulsorily registerable document and is also a document, which requires stamp duty. No costs. 9. It is made clear that in the event the defendants, who tendered the document, pay stamp duty together with penalty or get the document impounded, the document may be looked into for collateral purposes subject of course to proof and relevancy.