JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3029/2009 dtd. 18/3/2020 for having decreed the suit of the respondent by granting 1/6th share each, in the item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property of the plaint. 2. Heard the argument of learned counsel for appellants and learned senior counsel for the respondent. 3. The appellants were defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the purpose of convenience. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the suit schedule property alleging that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the daughters and son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendants constituted undivided joint family of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff married and defendant Nos.2 to 4 also was married, by performing the marriage out of joint family funds. The defendant No.5 is the only son and all are living together. There was partition held between the defendant No.1 and his brothers, in respect of several property which are joint family properties. The defendant no.1 had aquired title and interest over the suit schedule property, which becomes ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants. 5. It is further contended that the plaintiff's main propositor was one Nanjappa who had two sons namely Kurulappa and Muniappa and after his death properties were divided between Kurulappa and Muniappa, the defendant No.1 is a party to the partition dtd. 5/5/1995. Further contended, as per the genealogical tree. The defendant No.1 is from branch of Nanjappa and his son Kurulappa and defendant No.1 is the son of Kurulappa. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of Nanjappa (defendant No.1.). There is no partition in respect of schedule property among plaintiff and defendant. The suit schedule property are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant, hence the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share of suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of Nanjappa (defendant No.1.). There is no partition in respect of schedule property among plaintiff and defendant. The suit schedule property are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant, hence the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share of suit schedule property. The house property in old khatha Nos.6 and 7, New No.14 situated at Chokkasandra Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North which is item No.1 and land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.50, which is consisting of house and vacant land with coconut trees, which is scheduled in item No.2 of the schedule property. The plaintiff issued illegal notice to the defendant for seeking partition, but the defendant No.1 replied that there was release deed dtd. 13/12/2000 said to be executed by the plaintiff by receiving Rs.1.00 lakh, but the plaintiff never relinquished her right in respect of the schedule property. The defendant alleged the relinquish deed dtd. 13/12/2000 said to be executed by her, she has obtained the EC from the concerned, subsequently it was registered and there is no such entry in the EC which is an unregistered deed which was created and forged by the defendant. She has not received Rs.1.00 lakh and never executed released deed and there was no necessity for her to demand any money from the defendant. The unregistered documents does not relate to the plaintiff at all. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed on 31/5/1990, the property were divided between Kurulappa and his father in 1995. As on the date of her marriage, there is no partition. The defendant not allowed the plaintiff to enter into the house, except for marriage ceremonies of her sister. The quarrel was leading to approach police, but the police advised to file civil suit, by taking the advantage of the fraudulent document, styled as released deed. Defendants are attempting to alienate the property to the third parties. Therefore, she has interest in 1/6th undivided share, hence filed suit for partition and separate possession. 6. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 have jointly filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The relationship of defendants are admitted and the plaintiff and defendants are Undivided joint family and further contended that as per the genealogical tree, one Muniyappa was Propositor and his three sons namely Nanjappa, Kodapa and Muthappa. 6. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 have jointly filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The relationship of defendants are admitted and the plaintiff and defendants are Undivided joint family and further contended that as per the genealogical tree, one Muniyappa was Propositor and his three sons namely Nanjappa, Kodapa and Muthappa. The Kurulappa who is son of Nanjappa, whose wife is Muniyamma. The defendant No.1 is the son of the Kurulappa and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children. He further alleged that the Kodappa having two wives Thirumallamma and Maymakka having a son Rangappa, who left Kodappa during 1927-28. The daughter of Maymakka one Akkayamma is alive and further stated for Muthappa there is son Muniyappa his wife Nanjamma having two sons and 4 daughters namely Hanumappa, M.Nagaraj, Muthamma, Maheswaramma, Nagamma and Muniyamma. He further contended that the plaintiff not impleaded the daughters of the Koralappa, that is sisters of the defendant No.1, namely Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma for the non-joinder of the necessary parties. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and further denied all the averments made in the plaint as false and further contended that the defendant No.1 issued reply notice, stating that the plaintiff issued Rs.1.00 lakh and released her right over the suit schedule property. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 also executed the release deeds in his favour by receiving Rs.1.00 lakh each. The plaintiff and all the defendant Nos.2 to 4 had received Rs.1.00 lakh and executed release deed. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 4 have no right title or interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, claim of the plaintiff for 1/6th share in the schedule property is not maintainable under the law. 7. The defendant further contended that one Venkatesh and Muniraju were the sons of late Kuralappa filed a partition suit in O.S.No.2736/2001, the subject matter of the property are one and the same. Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and further contended that the plaintiff not included other 3 items i.e., site No.6 in respect of Sy. NO.50 situated at Chokksandra village, measuring 50 x 35 feet, another property land bearing Sy. Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and further contended that the plaintiff not included other 3 items i.e., site No.6 in respect of Sy. NO.50 situated at Chokksandra village, measuring 50 x 35 feet, another property land bearing Sy. No.16/1 measuring 14 guntas and site no.1measuring 34 x 40 ft with RCC building situated at Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthpur Taluk, were all property originally belonging to one Kurulappa which was joint property, which were not included. Hence this suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. The defendant No.3 adopted the written statement denying point Nos.1, 2 and 5. The defendant No.4 filed written statement by denying all the averments taking similar contention as taken by the defendant No.1 and praying for dismissal of the suit. Based upon the pleadings the Trial Court framed 7 issues and 2 additional issues as below: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties consisting of herself and Defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that she is entitled to 1/6 share in suit properties? prove that by taking amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 from them, plaintiff had executed release deed dtd. 13/12/2000 and relinquished her right, interest and title over suit properties in their favour? 4. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 prove that by taking amount Rs.1, 00, 000.00- from them, defenant No.4 has executed release deed dated a 16/11/2000 and relinquished her right. interest and title over suit properties in their favour? 5. Whether plaintiff proves that the release deed dtd. 13/12/2000 purported to have been executed by her, is a forged and fabricated document, and hence, same is not binding on her? 6. Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. What Order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., daughters of Kurlappa? 2. Whether the defendant No.1, 2 and 5 prove that the plaintiff has not included three items of joint family properties? 9. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 32 documents and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and examined 3 other witnesses and got marked 10 documents. He also examined two witness, D.W.2 and D.W.3 and defendant No.4 was examined as D.W.4. They marked 11 documents. 9. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 32 documents and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and examined 3 other witnesses and got marked 10 documents. He also examined two witness, D.W.2 and D.W.3 and defendant No.4 was examined as D.W.4. They marked 11 documents. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court answered the issue nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff, issue nos.3 and 4 in negative and issue nos.5 and 6 in affirmative and Additional issues in the negative. Finally, decreed the suit granting 1/6th share in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the defendant filed this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants- defendants has strenuously argued that the first appellant who is the first defendant in the Trial Court is having two sisters namely Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma, but they were not made as the parties in the suit. The property is ancestral property where the first defendant and his two sisters Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma are entitled for 1/3rd shares each of the property of the father. If 1/3rd share of the suit schedule property is fallen to the share of first defendant, the plaintiff and other five defendants are entitled for 1/6th share each, out of 1/3rd share. That means, the plaintiff is entitled 1/18th share. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court granting 1/3rd share, is not correct. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants- defendants further contended that the plaintiff has already executed release deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 13/12/2000 by receiving Rs.1.00 lakh. Likewise, defendant No.2 to 4 also executed relinquish deed in favour of defendant No.1 by receiving R.1.00 lakh each. Thereby, the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not entitled for any share in the property. It is further contended that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the unrelinquished deed is not acceptable. If that is the case, the sisters of the 1st defendant are also entitled for share as they also relinquished right in favour of defendant No.1. It is further contended that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the unrelinquished deed is not acceptable. If that is the case, the sisters of the 1st defendant are also entitled for share as they also relinquished right in favour of defendant No.1. The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that one Venkatesh and Muniraju filed a suit for partition against the 1st defendant in O.S. No.2736/2001 which came to be dismissed on 13/2/2013 and the first appeal in R.F.A. No.924/2013 was also dismissed on 14/9/2022 for non filling of paper books. If those two persons were succeeded, the property would have been further divided. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/3rd share in the property. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and contended that the relinquish deed as alleged by the 1st defendant was created and bought up document, it is an unregistered document and it is not admitted. The property belongs to the joint family property. There is no partition in the family of the 1st defendant as on the date of commencement of Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act. The aunt of the plaintiff already filed written statement in the suit filed by Venkatesh and Muniyappa in O.S. No.2736/2001. They relinquished their right in favour of the 1st defendant and a decree is also passed in that regard. Therefore, out of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share . Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records. 14. The point that arise for consideration are (i). Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants ? (ii). Whether 1st defendant prove that the suit schedule property does not belong to the undivided family of the plaintiff and defendants as the property also belongs to his sisters Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in suit schedule property? (iv) Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for interference? 15. On Perusal of the records reveals that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is daughter of 1st defendant and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the 1st defendant. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in suit schedule property? (iv) Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for interference? 15. On Perusal of the records reveals that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is daughter of 1st defendant and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff lead evidence on her behalf and produced and got marked 41 documents, out of which Exs.P.1. to P.14 are RTC extracts and there is no dispute in this. Exs.P.15 to P.18 are the complaint filed by her against the respondents. Exs.P.19 to P.23 are the plaint and written statement and deposition of D.W.1 and P.W.1 in O.S. No.7560/2001. Exs.P.24 to P.28 are the statement made by Nagamma and other in Crime No. 329/2008, Ex.P.29 is legal notice, Ex.P.30 is reply notice, Ex.P.31 and P.32 are spot panchanama and wound certificate in criminal cases and Exs.P.33 to P.41 are photots. 16. On the other hand, 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. He also got examined as D.Ws.2 and 3 and D.W.4-Bhagyamma. All are supporting the case of the 1st defendant. 17. The main contention of appellants- defendants in the written statement as well as in the evidence is that the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the 1st defendant out of the partition between himself and his circle in the earlier suit in O.S. No.7516/2001. Now, he has contended that 1st defendant is having two sisters, Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma and therefore, he is entitled for 1/3rd share but not the entire share. Another contention was also taken that Venkatesh and Muniraju, who claimed to be the children of koralappa, i.e. father of 1st defendant were seeking partition in O.S. No.2736/2001, which was dismissed on 13/2/2013. Therefore, if the property belongs to the joint family and if Muniraju and Venkatesh were claimed to be the children of father of defendant No.1 and two other sisters are there, the 1st defendant is entitled for only 1/5th share. Even otherwise, by excluding those two persons, his sisters Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma were having 1/3rd share each in the said property. Therefore, appellant has contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/3rd share and the same was negative by trial Court by examining the witnesses. 18. Even otherwise, by excluding those two persons, his sisters Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma were having 1/3rd share each in the said property. Therefore, appellant has contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/3rd share and the same was negative by trial Court by examining the witnesses. 18. Admittedly, in O.S. No.2736/2001 filed by Venkatesh and Muniraju was dismissed by the trial Court, where the very two sisters of 1st defendant namely Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma filed written statement in the said court relinquishing their right in favour of the 1st defendant. Based upon the said written statement and the evidence on record, the said suit was dismissed. The said Muniraju and Venkatesh were unable to prove that they were the children of Koralappa and the appeal before the High Court was also dismissed, of course, not on merits. Therefore, once Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma waived their rights in favour of the 1st defendant in the Court in the earlier proceedings, again the said Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma have no right to claim any share in the suit schedule property. Though they executed unregistered relinquish deed, but they admitted before the Court relinquishing their right in favour of 1st defendant, their brother. Therefore, the admitted facts need not to be proved as they already relinquished their right. Such being the case, the contention of Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma that they are also having 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property, cannot be acceptable. 19. That apart, the said Muniraju and Venkatesh were also defeated in the legal battle. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant is not in possession of the entire suit schedule property, which belongs to Hindu undivided joint family of the plaintiff and defendant. 20. The case of the defendant is that though defendant Nos.2 to 4 and plaintiff said to be relinquished their right and they given evidence and filed written statement in this regard before the trial Court, the plaintiff has denied the execution of relinquish deed dtd. 13/12/2000 and she has filed a suit disputing the relinquish deed on the ground that the said relinquish deed was not duly registered, hence, not admissible under Sec. 49 of Registration Act. If the immovable property is transferred, it requires to be registered before the Sub-Registrar under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. 21. Admittedly, Ex.D.2-the relinquish deed dtd. 13/12/2000 and she has filed a suit disputing the relinquish deed on the ground that the said relinquish deed was not duly registered, hence, not admissible under Sec. 49 of Registration Act. If the immovable property is transferred, it requires to be registered before the Sub-Registrar under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. 21. Admittedly, Ex.D.2-the relinquish deed dtd. 13/12/2002, relied on by defendant No.1, allegedly relinquished right by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel for respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015)16 SCC 787 . At paragraph 15 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 15. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both Exts. B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, it becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exts.B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registrable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exts. B-21 and B-22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition. 22. In another judgment in case of SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD AND OTHERS reported in (2018)7 SCC 646 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view. At paragraph Nos.20 and 22 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 20. 22. In another judgment in case of SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD AND OTHERS reported in (2018)7 SCC 646 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view. At paragraph Nos.20 and 22 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 20. Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Sec. 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. Since, the deed of exchange has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property, namely, RCC building, it requires registration under Sec. 17. Since the deed of exchange has not been registered, it cannot be taken into account to the extent of the transfer of an immovable property. 22. It is clear from the above judgment that the best evidence of the contents of the document is the document itself and as required under Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act the document itself has to be produced to prove its contents. But having regard to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, any document which is not registered as required under law, would be inadmissible in evidence and cannot, therefore, be produced and proved under Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act. Since Ext. P-2 is an unregistered document, it is inadmissible in evidence and as such it can neither be proved under Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act nor any oral evidence can be given to prove its contents. Therefore, the High Court has rightly discarded the exchange deed at Ext. P-2. 23. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and if any property worth more than Rs.100.00 requires registration under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act and if the document is not registered, it is inadmissible as per Sec. 49 of Registration Act. Therefore, I am of the view that Ex.D.2-relinquish deed relied on by the appellant-defendant is not admissible. Therefore, I am of the view that Ex.D.2-relinquish deed relied on by the appellant-defendant is not admissible. In view of the above findings, the Ex.D.3-copy of plaint, Ex.D.4-copy of amended written statement, Ex.D.5- copy of written statement in O.S. No.2736/2001, Ex.D.6-copy of judgment and decree, Ex.D.7-copy of decree in O.S. No.2736/2001 and Ex.D.8-copy of appeal memo in RFA No.924/2013, Ex.D.9-order sheet, are all not helpful to the appellant's case. On the other hand, the plaintiff has categorically proved the case that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant and she is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. 24. The learned counsel for respondent also contended that in the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner has already filed a report and except drawing the final decree proceedings, nothing has been left. The property is already demarcated. The learned counsel also produced Commissioner report filed in final decree proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 25. Considering the material on record, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of 1st defendant and other witnesses and documents and has rightly, decreed the suit by granting 1/6th share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. The trial Court, by considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly appreciated the same and granted decree, which calls for no interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.