JUDGMENT : This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in AS. No. 28 of 2017 of learned subordinate Judge, Gudalur, modifying the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Gudalur in O.S.No.431 of 2011. 2. Respondents filed Suit in O.S.No.431 of 2011, seeking a preliminary decree for partition of 1/7th share in the suit properties and for costs. The Respondents/Plaintiffs case is that the 1st Defendant is the Mother and Defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers. The 1st Defendant's husband, Plaintiffs' and 2nd & 3rd Defendants' father is Mr.Kuttappan Aasari died during first week of August 1986, leaving Plaintiffs and Defendants as his legal heirs to succeed to his properties. Mr.Kuttappan Aasari was an absolute owner of an extent of 1.40 acres of land in Survey No.593/2 of Gudalur Village, which is the suit property in this case. After the demise of Father viz., Mr.Kuttappan Aasari, suit property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Plaintiffs demanded partition by metes and bounds and requested the Defendants to effect partition. But the Defendants refused to concede to their request. Therefore, a legal notice dated 24.04.2010 was issued to the Defendants, seeking partition and expressing their definite and unequivocal intention of partition of suit property. Even thereafter, the Defendants have not come forward to effect partition and it necessitated the filing of this Suit. 3. Third Defendant filed written statement and that was adopted by Defendants 1 and 2. The case of the Defendants/Appellants 1 and 2 is that they admitted the relationship between the parties. It is also admitted that their Father viz., Mr.Kuttappan Aasari was the absolute owner of the suit property and the property devolved on his legalheirs after his demise. It is denied that the suit property was enjoyed in common by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. It is the specific case of the Defendants that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of Father viz., Mr.Kuttappan Aasari, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an oral partition. As per the oral partition, a family settlement was reached. The value of the property was assessed at Rs.1,75,000/-. On 02.05.1996, the 3rd Plaintiff/Mrs.Padmavathi had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards her share in the suit property. She executed a letter of acknowledgment, relinquishing her right in the suit property. As per the oral partition, a family settlement was reached. The value of the property was assessed at Rs.1,75,000/-. On 02.05.1996, the 3rd Plaintiff/Mrs.Padmavathi had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards her share in the suit property. She executed a letter of acknowledgment, relinquishing her right in the suit property. The 2nd Plaintiff/Mrs.Sarojini had also received a sum of Rs.34,225/- and relinquished her share in the suit property. She also executed an acknowledgment deed dated 25.02.1997 in this regard. Therefore, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are precluded and estopped from claiming their shares from the suit property. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and their demand of partition are false and they are made out for this case. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not entitled for any share in the suit property. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: “(i) Whether Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled for share or not? (ii) Whether a preliminary decree can be passed as prayed by the Plaintiffs? (iii) To what other relief?” 5. During the trial before the trial Court, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. DWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 6.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge found that the relinquishment deeds Exs.B1 and B.2 executed by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 would bind them and having obtained cash in lieu of share in the suit property, they are not entitled to claim partition in the suit property. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for partition insofar as Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are concerned and granted partition for 1st Plaintiff and other Defendants, declaring that they are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit property. 7. Plaintiffs 2 & 3 challenged this judgment by way of filing an Appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2017. On re-appreciation and re-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced in this case, hearing the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and going through the judgment of the trial Court, the learned first Appellate Judge found that Exs.B1 and B2 relinquishment deed created a right in itself and therefore, it requires registration. On re-appreciation and re-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced in this case, hearing the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and going through the judgment of the trial Court, the learned first Appellate Judge found that Exs.B1 and B2 relinquishment deed created a right in itself and therefore, it requires registration. Since Exs.B1 and B2 are not registered, they are inadmissible evidence and do not bind Plaintiffs 2 and 3. In this view of the matter, the learned first Appellate Judge found that the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are also entitled to claim their share in the suit property. Thus the judgment of the trial Court was set aside, insofar as negativing the claim of partition by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 is concerned and the suit was decreed. Challenging and questioning the judgment of the first Appellate Court, Defendants 2 and 3 have filed this Second Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in a family arrangement both Plaintiffs 2 and 3, voluntarily relinquished their right and in view of the relinquishment of their right in the suit property, they received cash consideration. Exs.B1 and B2 have been executed only after the family settlement and to evidence that there was a family settlement. Exs.B1 and B2 cannot be considered as a document creating right in itself and therefore, these documents do not require registration. Only a past transaction was recorded in these relinquishment deeds. This was rightly considered by the trial Court. However, the first Appellate Court on the wrong reading and understanding of Exs.B1 and B2 documents and wrong application of law found that Exs.B1 & B2 require registration and therefore, these documents are inadmissible evidence. Consequently, found that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 also entitled for partition. This finding of the first Appellate Court is contrary to the recitals of the documents and position of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the Appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial Court. 9.Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the records. 10.From the facts narrated above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Mrs.Karthiyaini/1st Defendant is the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3. Her husband, Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3's father was late Mr.Kuttappan Aasari. 10.From the facts narrated above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Mrs.Karthiyaini/1st Defendant is the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3. Her husband, Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3's father was late Mr.Kuttappan Aasari. It is also not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to him and after his death, as legalheirs of late Mr.Kuttappan Aasari, Plaintiffs and Defendants are entitled to claim their share in the suit property. Only hurdle as claimed by the Defendants is that Plaintiffs 2 and 3, after receiving cash consideration, relinquished their share in the suit property and executed documents in this regard. Therefore, they are not entitled for share in the suit property. As stated above, the trial Court accepted the case of the Defendants and found that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not entitled for share and that finding was reversed by the first Appellate Court. Therefore, what we have to consider is the nature and scope of Exs.B1 and B2 documents. It is seen from the judgment of the trial Court that relevant portion of Exs.B1 and B2 documents are extracted in para 14 of the judgments as below. OTHER LANGUAGE 11. The plain and simple reading of these documents show that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 received cash consideration on the date of execution of these documents and relinquished their right in the property. There is no doubt from the reading of these documents that they received cash consideration of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.34,225/- and relinquished their right from the date of receipt of cash consideration. In these documents, it is not shown as there was already a family partition and in pursuance of the family partition they received a cash consideration and the parties to the family settlement are enjoying their respective shares and that has been reduced in writing. From the recitals in these documents, it can be only made out that these documents created a right in praesnti and therefore, it definitely require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. In the absence of registration, these documents are not admissible in evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be excluded from the partition of the suit properties, on the basis of Exs.B1 and B2 documents. In the absence of registration, these documents are not admissible in evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be excluded from the partition of the suit properties, on the basis of Exs.B1 and B2 documents. Trial Court has misconstrued the documents and applied wrong principle of law and denied the claim of partition by the Plaintiffs 2 and 3. That wrong was rightly reversed by the first Appellate Court. This Court fully agrees with the finding of the first Appellate Court that Plaintiffs 2 & 3 cannot be excluded from claiming partition in the suit property, on the basis of Exs.B1 and B2 and therefore, they are also entitled to partition of the suit property. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court confirms the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 23.04.2021 made in A.S.No.28 of 2017. There is no substantial question(s) of law involved in this Second Appeal. Therefore, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, no order as to costs.