V. Jagannathan, J.—This second appeal is by the L.Rs. of the first defendant before the tried court and they are aggrieved by the lower appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and separate possession of their l/3rd share in the suit schedule property. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as having been barred by limitation.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are, as to the parties' relationship with one another, inasmuch as the original propositus of the family was one Nanjegowda and his sons were one Patel Mallegowda, Mogannagowda @ Puttaswamygowda. One Chikkegowda is the brother of Nanjegowda and one M.C. Rudrappa is the son of said Chikkegowda. The plaintiffs viz., Shivakumar, Mallesha, Vinoda and Chidananda are the sons of M.C. Rudrappa and so also the fourth defendant Rajashekar. The other defendants were Shanthappa and Puttappa, who are the sons of Patel Mallegowda, and M.P. Basavaraj, son of Mogannagowda, and Rajashekar, son of Rudrappa. Thus, the parties have no grouse regarding their relationship.

3. The parties do not further dispute the fact of a partition having taken place in the family in the year 1961 and, as per the said partition, the joint family properties were partitioned and this partition did not include one item, which is the subject matter of the present suit It is also an admitted fact that the suit property was mortgaged to one Sooranna Shetty and that is why the said item did not find a place in the partition effected in 1961.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit in question praying for declaration that the deed of relinquishment of the year 1969 by which the suit property was relinquished in favour of the father of defendants-1 and 2 viz., Patel Mallegowda, was void and, therefore, it had no binding effect on the plaintiffs and, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the said suit property, It was the plaintiffs' case that the suit property was not included in the partition deed dated 15.4.1961 and the very deed itself also made it clear that if any property belonging to the joint family has been left, out, all the parties were entitled to have equal share in it and, therefore, referring to this averment in the partition deed, the plaintiffs went before the trial court seeking the relief of declaration that the deed of relinquishment is void and for share in the suit item.

5. The defendants, on the other hand, took up the stand that, at the time of partition in the year 1961, there was a mortgage loan subsisting in respect of the suit schedule property and the responsibility had been entrusted to Patel Mallegowda to discharge the said loan and hence, by the deed of relinquishment, the suit property was given to Patel Mallegowda with the understanding that he will discharge the loan and thereafter, the suit property will become his property.

6. Another stand taken in the written statement by the defendants is that, in the year 1982, there was a partition among the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant and, at that point of time, there was no whisper with regard to the suit property is concerned and, following the death of Patel Mallegowda, the defendants went in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which fact was mho known to the plaintiffs. It was also contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs had become majors at the time of family partition in the year 1982 itself and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs also had become barred by the law of limitation. The very fact that the release deed of 1969 was challenged by the plaintiffs in the year 1994 itself is sufficient to hold that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

7. It is with the above pleadings, this parties went before the trial court and the learned trial judge framed relevant issues that arose out of the pleadings of the parties and, after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned tri