K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF s are the appellants. Their suit for partition and separate possession has been partly dismissed.

( 2 ) THE 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant and grand-father of the plaintiffs. PW3 is his brother while PW2 is his nephew. Item No. 6 of the Plaint a Schedule property was allotted to the 2nd defendant in Ex. Dl, dated 2-6-1958. The remaining Plaint a Schedule properties, that is Items 1 to 5 allottea to the 1st defendant have been sold to the defendants No. 3 to 5 through separate sale deeds, by him.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for their 2/5th share in the Plaint a and Plaint b Schedule Properties, alleging that these properties belong to the Joint Hindu Family consisting of the plaintiffs, their father, that is the second defendant and their grand-father, the first defendant. The 2nd defendant has got 1/10th share in them while the 1st defendant has got half share in them. Their father, that is the 2nd defendant, was a man of feeble-mind and was easily gullible. He was mentally sick also. The 1st defendant being a shrewd man obtained a relinquishment deed, Ex. Dl, on 2-6-1958 from their father, that is the Defendant No. 2. He had executed nominal sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5. The relinquishment deed, Ex. Dl, is not binding on them. Therefore, their share should be declared as 2/5th in the Plaint a and b Schedule Properties and the properties should be divided by metes and bounds and they should be placed in the properties allotted to them.

( 4 ) THE 4th defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs. He pleaded that, there is no property in existence as mentioned in the Schedule b of the Plaint while the Plaint a Schedule properties were the self acquired properties of the 1st defendant. Even so, on 2-6-1958, the 1st and the 2nd defendants divided the Plaint a Schedule Properties into two equal halves. They also divided the cash and the ornaments. Item No. 6, that is the house property, valued Rs. 10,000. 00and Rs. 6,500. 00 in cash and the ornaments weighing 50 tulas valued at Rs. 5,000. 00, total valuation Rs. 21,500. 00, fell to the share of the 2nd defendant while two houses and one open site, 50 tulas of gold and Rs. 6,500. 00 in cash, total valuation Rs. 21,500. 00, fell to the share of the 1 st defendant. He later constructed two more houses on the open site and both of them executed the relinquishment deed, Ex. Dl, and got it registered. The sale deeds executed in favour of the Defendants No. 3 to 5 are all valid and the 1st defendant had executed them after receiving adequate consideration. They are bona fide purchasers for value.

( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant remained absent after service of summons and he was proceeded ex parte. The remaining defendants adopted the written statement of the 4th defendant.

( 6 ) ON assessment of the evidence on record, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the deed, Ex. Dl, dated 2-6-1958, is actually a partition deed through which the properties belonging to the Joint Hindu Family were equally divided into two halves. The 2nd defendant was allotted the Plaint a Schedule Properties, white the 1st defendant was allotted the Plaint b Schedule Properties of the deed, Ex. Dl. Though the Deed was styled as "relinquishment deed", but actually it was a "partition deed". The Trial Court further found that, even otherwise, the 2nd defendant has relinquished his share in the Plaint b Schedule Properties of the Deed, Ex. DI, against adequate consideration and, therefore, it is not only binding on him, but also on the plaintiffs. Taking that view, the trial Court declared the share of the plaintiffs in Item No. 6 of the Plaint a Schedule Properties which was allotted to the 2nd defendant in the partition deed, Ex. Dl, and passed a preliminary decree to this extent, but dismissed the suit in respect of the remaining Plaint a Schedule and Plaint b Schedule Properties.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document