Claimants must adhere to limitation periods; a suit cannot be revived after an inordinate delay without sufficient explanation.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 passed in O.S. No.46/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kundgol, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’] whereunder the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties i.e., the plaintiff and defendant are the sons of one Naganagouda, who died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant and three daughters as his legal representatives. That the sisters of the parties have died long back. That the plaintiff and defendant constitute a joint family and they have purchased an agricultural land bearing Survey No.104/4 (item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule) from one Naganagouda Venkanagouda in the year 1964 from the income of the joint family. That since the defendant who was the elder brother of the family was managing the joint family, he purchased the property in his name and that the Khata was mutated in his name vide M.E.No.1313. However, the property was a joint family property.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he got appointed as CRPF constable and went to service. That during his service, he used to come and visit his village and pay some amounts from his salary to the defendant to purchase the property. That the defendant was cultivating the agricultural land and from the income of the joint family property, the plaintiff and defendant have jointly purchased another agricultural land bearing Sy.No.102/2 of Hirebudihal village (item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule’) in the year 1972 from one H.B.Kadappanagouda and got mutated their names under MR No.1512. That the plaintiff and defendant further purchased a house property out of the income of the joint family in the name of the defendant. That when the plaintiff was serving in the border area, he fell ill and took voluntary retirement and started residing in his sister’s house at Hanasi village of Navalagund Taluk, as he married the daughter of his sister. That he used to visit Hirebudihal village to see his relatives, land and house properties. That, the defendant was cultivating the suit lands by residing in the suit house property and used to give some food grains grown in the land, but one year prior to filing of the suit, the defendant did not give any food grains and when asked, he said that as there was a drought, as a result of which he could not grow grain and will give the same in the following year. That believing the same, the plaintiff kept quiet and in the following year when he demanded the food grains, the defendant replied saying that if the lands are in his name, he may cultivate the land. That upon verification, the plaintiff learnt that the land in Survey No. 102/2 stood in the name of the defendant and the defendant created a bogus relinquishment deed dated 24.06.1987 as if the plaintiff has given up his share in favour of the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff has not executed any relinquishment deed and the signature on the said deed is not that of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has a half share in the suit properties. That when the plaintiff asked defendant No.1 to rescind the varadi to effect his name, the defe