The court reaffirmed that a registered release deed constitutes constructive notice, and failure to challenge it promptly can render subsequent claims barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. These Regular Second Appeals are filed by the appellants challenging the common judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 passed in R.A.Nos.20/2010 and 21/2010 by the learned Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court in O.S.No.120/2000. The appellants in RSA No.366/2013 the appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondent was the defendant and in RSA No.367/2013 the appellant was the defendant and respondents were the plaintiffs.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

The plaintiff in O.S.No.158/2002 i.e., Pandurangaiah filed a suit against the defendant i.e., Devaraju for declaration of title and injunction and the Muniyappa and Smt. Rangamma, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.120/2000 filed a suit against Pandurangaiah i.e., plaintiff in O.S.No.158/2002 for the relief of declaration to declare the registered release deed dated 24.01.1977 is not binding on them and also for an order of permanent injunction.

O.S.No.158/2002:

4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of suit in O.S.No.158/2002 are that the one Annayyappa was having 5 children, namely, Kempaiah, Maluvaiah, Muniyappa, Pandurangaiah i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.158/2002 and Rajanna. The Rajanna had a son by name Devaraj, i.e., the defendant in O.S.No.158/2002. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property through the registered release deed dated 24.01.1977. He had constructed a house on the suit property about 10 years ago as of the filing of this suit measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 30 feet and the remaining land was kept vacant. The defendant has no right title or interest in the suit property and is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff i.e., Pandurangaiah and tried to put up illegal construction in the vacant portion of the suit property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff Pandurangaiah to file a suit for injunction.

5. On the other hand, the defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the plaintiff i.e., Pandurangaiah is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and it is also denied that the plaintiff, Pandurangaiah had acquired the title of the suit schedule property by way of a registered release deed dated 24.01.1977 and constructed a house. It is contended that the suit schedule property is their ancestral and joint family property. It belonged to Annayyappa S/o. Kempaiah, who acquired it from his ancestors. The said Annayyappa had 5 sons by name Kempaiah, Maluvaiah, Muniyappa, Pandurangaiah i.e., the plaintiff herein and Rajanna, the father of the defendant.

6. It is further contended that sons of Annayyappa got divided the ancestral properties under a Palupatti dated 10.01.1960 and in the said partition, the suit property fell to the share of Muniyappa and Rajanna under ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedules, respectively. Since from the date of deed of partition, the defendants father and Muniyappa were in possession of the suit schedule property. After the death of defendant’s father i.e., Rajanna, the plaintiff, Pandurangaiah, attempted to dispossess the Devaraj and Muniyappa. The Muniyappa and defendant’s mother filed a suit in O.S.No.120/2000 seeking for a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. The plaint