The court affirmed that a registered release deed executed by a father in favor of another coparcener is a valid conveyance for consideration, despite claims of fraud and joint family status.

ORDER :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

RSA No.2103/2007 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1/1987 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore and the judgment and decree in R.A.No.6/1993 on the file of Fast Track -II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. The said suit is one for bare injunction in respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.165/2 and 197 of Madiwala village, Taluk:Anekal. Suit is decreed. Defendants' First Appeal is dismissed. Hence, defendants are before this Court in this RSA No.2103/2007.

3. RSA No.2109/2007 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.40/1981 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore and judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.5/1993 on the file of Fast Track Court - II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

4. The said suit is for declaration and partition. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are entitled to half share and prayed for partition and separate possession of half share. The said suit is dismissed and First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs is also dismissed. Hence, the present RSA No.2109/2007.

5. Both suits were clubbed together and disposed by a common judgment and both appeals before First Appellate Court were disposed of by a common judgment.

6. This Court vide order dated 03.07.2012 has admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the father can release the right of his sons (coparceners) in favour of another coparcener?

(ii) Whether the plea of 'Adverse possession' is available in respect of coparcenary property?

7. The appellants in RSA No.2103/2007 are sons of Narayana Reddy. Venkataswamy Reddy (defendant in the suit for partition) is the brother of appellants’ father Narayana Reddy.

8. The appellants in RSA No.2103/2007 who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.40/1981 have claimed partition on the premise that the registered release deed dated 05.10.1948 is got executed by defendant - Venkataswamy Reddy is outcome of fraud and does not bind them and does not affect their share. The plaintiffs contend their father, defendant and the plaintiffs constituted a joint family.

9. Defendant - Venkataswamy denied the joint family status with the plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs’ father Narayana Reddy was fostered from the age of 4 by uncle Nanja Reddy, and since then Narayana Reddy never lived with his father. Defendant also urged that registered release deed dated 05.10.1948 is executed for a valid consideration of Rs.4,000/-. The plaintiffs' father who executed the deed in 1948 died on 01.09.1979 did not question the said release deed dated 05.10.1948 and his right to question the release deed had extinguished by the time he died in the year 1979 and the plaintiffs did not inherit the right to assail the said registered deed dated 05.10.1948.

10. The plaintiffs also contended that there was a partition in the family on 16.08.1967 between Naga Reddy and other family members comprising plaintiffs' father and defendant - Venkataswamy. The plaintiffs contend that only Naga Reddy separated from the family and the plaintiffs, their father and defendant - Venkataswamy lived together.

11. O.S.No.1/1987 is filed by the Venkataswamy, the defendant in O.S.No.40/1981, for injunction in respect of t