Legal representatives cannot adopt inconsistent positions from the deceased, and a mere varadi does not constitute valid relinquishment of property rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

The judgment in O.S.No.72/2011 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad has given rise to these two appeals, one by the plaintiff and the other by the 7th defendant in the suit. RFA.No.100028/2015 is filed by the 7th defendant and RFA.No.100029/2015 is filed by the plaintiff. After the death of the appellant in RFA.No.100029/2015 his daughter Leena came on record as legal representative. Respondents 6 and 7 namely Beena and Kiran are also treated as legal representatives. Appellant’s wife Shashikala was impleaded as Respondent no.8.

2. In RFA No.100028/2015 the plaintiff was arrayed as respondent no.7 and in this appeal, Shashikala and Leena were impleaded as his legal representatives.

3. The material facts pleaded by the plaintiff are like this:

The name of plaintiff’s wife is Shashikala. Defendant no.6 Beena is plaintiff’s daughter and defendant no.7 Kiran is his son. The suit properties consist of agricultural lands in Block nos.49, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57 and 142 of Yattinagudda village, Dharwad Taluk. The measurements and boundaries of these properties are shown in the plaint. The plaintiff and defendant no.6 being a minor purchased the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1973. The plaintiff himself represented his minor daughter at the time of purchase. Defendant no.6 attained majority in the year 1993. An entry was made in the revenue records indicating that plaintiff was discharged from the guardianship of his daughter, however his name continued in the revenue records to the extent of his share. The plaintiff’s wife, namely Shashikala induced him to enter the name of his minor son i.e., defendant no.7 in the record of rights relating to the suit properties and heeding to his wife’s request he gave a report (varadi) to the village account on 08.07.1993 to substitute his name by his son’s name and it was carried out. Since the son was a minor, the name of plaintiff’s wife Shashikala was shown as the guardian of minor defendant no.7.

4. On 06.02.1995, defendant no.6 who had then become a major, and Shashikala in the capacity of guardian of defendant no.7 entered into an agreement of sale with one Mahadevappa Sankoji agreeing to sell the suit properties to the latter for sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and received earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/-. But this sale agreement was cancelled and then they executed another agreement of sale in favour of one Mohammad Shafi and Mohammad Ashfaq (defendant no.5) on 09.06.1997 agreeing to sell the suit properties to him for consideration of Rs.11,50,000/-. The purchasers paid Rs.4,00,000/- to them towards earnest money. This Rs.4,00,000/- consisted of Rs.2,00,000/- which was returned to the first agreement holder Mahadevappa Sankoji. Having entered into agreement with Mohammad Shafi and Mohammad Ashfaq, Shashikala and defendant no.6 handed over possession of the suit properties to them. The plaintiff was not a party to both the agreements. The plaintiff came to know that defendant no.6 had executed a general power of attorney on 08.06.1995 in favour of her mother i.e., Shashikala for the purpose of managing the suit properties. He also came to know that defendant no.6 had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of defendant no.7 on 15.06.2006 in relation to her half share in the suit properties, but since that relinquishment was not under a registered document, no title passed on to defendant no.7 and therefore defendant no.6 continued to be the absolute owner of her half share. On the basis of unregistered relinquishment deed and a report that the plaintiff had already given, defendant no.7 was shown as the only owner and cultivator of the entire suit properties even though he had not become absolute owner.

5. In the last week of March 2011 when the plaintiff casually visited the suit properties, defendants 1 to 4 told him that they had purchased the suit properties from defendant no.7. Thereafter the plaintiff enquir