Registered relinquishment required for transfer of immovable property; mutation entry and oral claim cannot displace title.

Title to immovable property cannot be displaced on the basis of an alleged oral relinquishment or a mutation entry where no pleaded case was made and no registered relinquishment deed was proved. The High Court held that instruments creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property, where registration is compulsory, must be duly registered; an unregistered document cannot affect the property or be relied on as proof of such transfer. Because the defendants failed to establish any lawful registered transfer or pre-existing title, the first appellate court erred in accepting their half-share claim and the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate court could sustain the defendants' claim to half share in the suit land on the basis of an alleged oral relinquishment and mutation entry, in the absence of a pleaded case and in the absence of a registered relinquishment deed.

Analysis: The defendants had not pleaded acquisition of title through an Azadinama or relinquishment, and no issue on that basis was framed. The evidence also did not establish any registered instrument by which the plaintiff had transferred or relinquished rights in immovable property. Under the Registration Act, instruments that create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish rights in immovable property of the requisite value require compulsory registration, and an unregistered document cannot affect the property or be received as evidence of such transaction. A mutation based on an oral relinquishment could not, by itself, confer title, particularly when the defendants had not shown any pre-existing title and the partition proceedings were not supported by lawful authority.

Conclusion: The first appellate court erred in relying on the alleged relinquishment and mutation to hold the defendants entitled to half share. The plaintiff's title could not be displaced without a registered relinquishment deed, and the trial court's decree was restored.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was revived because title to immovable property could not pass on the basis of an unregistered relinquishment or mutation entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Title in immovable property can be transferred or relinquished only through a duly registered instrument where registration is compulsory, and an unregistered document or mutation entry cannot by itself confer title or affect such property.

---