IMPORTANT POINT
[A relinquishment deed must be registered to be admissible in evidence, and the absence of such a deed undermines claims of ownership or relinquishment of property rights.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

2. In spite of service respondent failed to appear in present second appeal.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Adhoc District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1998 dtd. 30/01/2014, thereby confirming judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti in regular Civil Suit No. 242/1992 (Old No. 37/1991) dtd. 07/10/1997, the appellant prefers this appeal.

4. The appeal is admitted vide order dtd. 05/10/2015 by framing following substantial questions of law:

(i) When the appellant by way of abandoned precaution stated in her plaint that some signatures were obtained by her brother in the year 1990 under the pretext of execution of Partition-Deed, then it is proper for the learned Lower Courts to record finding that the present appellant failed to prove that the relinquishment deed was fraudulently obtained by the defendant particularly when the defendant himself failed to produce the relinquishment-deed on the record?

(ii) Merely because one sale-deed came to be executed in favour of the present appellant after the death of her father, would that circumstance lead to conclude that brother of the appellant i.e. defendant helped her for purchase of the property and can said circumstance deprive the appellant for claiming decree of partition?

(iii) Whether the subordinate Courts are right in denying the decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the appellant without recording finding on the point that the appellant is not entitled or is not having share in the suit property?"

5. The case of the Plaintiff is as under:

The appellant and respondent are brother and sister. Father of the appellant and respondent owned and possessed the field property situated at mouza Sayyadpur and Abadalpur, Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha. The description of the property field (A) Mouza Sayyadpur, mouza no. 446, Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha, Survey No. 41, area 1.08, land assessment 4:35 Class I. (B) Mouza Abdalpur, mouzaNo. 19, Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha, Survey No.7, area 2.12 HR, Jama 10.50, Class II and (C) Mouza Ajitpur, mouza No.19, Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha, Survey No. 27/1, area 1.15, Jama 5.25 Class I. Father of the appellant and the respondent died on 03/03/1977 leaving behind him, the appellant and respondent as his legal heirs. The appellant and the respondent have equal share i.e. 1/2 share in the field property A to C after the death of their father. Still property is joint property of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant demanded the partition of the said property so many times to the respondent but in vain. The appellant issued registered notice on 03/06/1986 through the Counsel for partition. The respondent received it but he did not take any cognizance of it nor did he replied. On the contrary, the respondent played the foul game with this appellant and he had obtained signature of the appellant on one stamp by saying that it was relating to partition deed between them. The appellant came to know that the respondent had taken disadvantage of the faith of the appellant and created one false document as deed of relinquishment. When the respondent applied for mutation on the basis of the said alleged relinquishment deed, 23/07/1990, on receipt of notice from Talathi she came to know about this document, hence she filed suit for partition and separate possession. In fact the appellant never executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent.

6. The defendant filed written statement and stated that the suit property was the self acquired property of the Champatrao and therefore, he is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit land. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 02/1998 before District Court -Wardha. Learned Appellate Court dis