This appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 in O.S.No.278 of 1985 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal.

2. As this is a first appeal, the parties are arrayed and described as plaintiff and defendants only.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the elder brother and sister-in-law. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and first defendant purchased a plot admeasuring 660 square yards for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1971. The sale deed is in favour the plaintiff and the second defendant. The plaintiff states that the second defendant is the nominee of first defendant. Later, while the second defendant wanted to apply for a loan at the Cooperative Society, the plaintiff states that he relinquished his rights in favour of second defendant only in order to facilitate the availment of loan. The plaintiff states that the second defendant availed the loan, but the plaintiff was also involved in the construction etc., of the property. The plaintiff also claims that in 1984-85 he demanded for partition of the property and as the partition was not agreed, the present suit is filed for a declaration that the release deed bearing No. 978 of 1972 is void and not binding on the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property excluding the value of the first floor for partition and other relief’s.

4. Both the defendants filed their written statements in which they assert that the loan was availed by the second defendant; that the property was developed by the second defendant and that the deed of relinquishment was voluntarily executed without any misrepresentations. They denied that the same was nominal etc. Both the defendants assert that as the property was developed by the second defendant alone by constructing first floor and as the value increased, first defendant devised a plan for partition, despite relinquishing his rights in 1972 itself. It is also averred by the defendants that the stand of the plaintiff is inconsistent and contradictory. In his lawyers notice when he made an attempt to seek a separate sub-division for the suit schedule property from the municipal office, he pleaded a partition. Now, it is urged that the document is nominal. Second defendant also asserted in her statement that she openly enjoyed the property; constructed double storied building by clearing the loan that she availed and that the plaintiff by his conduct is estopped from laying the claim etc.

5. The lower Court framed 9 issues in all and gave its findings and ultimately dismissed the suit. It is this order that is assailed in the present appeal.

6. I have heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

7. The main contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff are that (a) the relinquishment deed was nominally executed in favour of the second defendant and that consideration was not passed at all; (b) the husband-first defendant is not a competent witness and the defendants case is not proved; and (c) the suit is not barred by time and therefore, the judgment of the lower Court is wrong.

8. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants argues that (a) the relinquishment deed in question was executed after due consideration of the terms and conditions; (b) the first defendant is a competent witness and the case is proved; (c) the suit is barred by time; and (d) lastly, the order of the lower Court is valid and correct.

9. The first and foremost point has to be considered is whether the deed of release dated 20.03.1972, which is marked as Ex.A.2/Ex.B.1, is valid or correct. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the plaintiff and first defendant are brothers. Second defendant is the first defendants wife and hence, she is t