Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30th January 2010 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.11A/2006 by which, the appellant/plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed.

2. Appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of possession of the disputed house as also for accounts and mesne profit on the pleadings inter alia that the father of the plaintiffs, Late Ghulam Abbas and father of the defendants, Late Mohammed Hussain, Nisar Ali and Adam Ali were sons of one Hussain Ali who held joint family property as also property acquired from their own income. It was further pleaded that a partition of family property had taken place amongst late Hussain Ali and his four sons as per panch decision on 03/09/1956 and later on, a deed of partition was also prepared on 10/02/1969, in which, the disputed house and certain lands situated at village Nakti fell to the share of late Ghulam Abbas. After the death of Ghulam Abbas, plaintiffs started living at Javra and the house in dispute remained in possession of defendants at Raipur which they were holding as constructive trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs asked defendants to handover the possession of the house and other earnings, by registered notice, the defendants did not accede to their claim which gave rise to cause of action for filing the suit and praying for relief’s.

3. In the written statement, the defendants admitted partition under partition deed dated 10.02.1968 and also admitted that the house in dispute was given to the share of late Ghulam Abbas. Defendants came out with the case that the land situated at vilage Nakti was already sold out during the lifetime of Ghulam Abbas. According to the defendants, the house in dispute though, was allotted to the share of Ghulam Abbas in partition, later on, vide sale deed dated 19.8.1976, it was sold to Mohammed Hussain, father of the defendants, vide a deed of sale for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and since then, Mohammed Hussain remained in possession and after his death, his sons are in continuous possession and their possession is in their own right and title not as constructive trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an extensive amendment was brought by defendants that Ghulam Abbas, during his life time, had executed on 12.07.1981, a deed of relinquishment in favour of their father Mohammed Hussain and it was duly registered. It was further pleaded that as the sale deed dated 19.08.1976 was unregistered, therefore, a deed of relinquishment was executed on 7.12.1981 which was registered. The consideration having already been paid, the deed of relinquishment was without any further consideration and ever since 1976, Mohammed Hussain had remained in possession and paying property tax to the Corporation. After the death of Mohammed Hussain on 13.10.1985, his sons/defendants and their mother have been duly recorded as occupant in the records of the Corporation.

5. A consequential amendment was also carried out by the plaintiffs in their pleading that the so called relinquishment deed dated 7.12.1981 is a forged, bogus and fictitious document and the father of the plaintiff, namely Abbas Khan never executed any such relinquishment deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of Mohammed Hussain.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court initially framed four issues and thereafter two additional issues were framed. Apart from the issues relating to partition, learned Trial Court also framed issue whether the suit was within limitation and whether defendants acquired title in the year 1976 and also whether Ghulam Abbas had executed relinquishment deed on 7.12.1981 in favour of defendant's father Mohammed Hussain.

7. Learned Trial Court held that even prior to the death of Ghulam Abbas, plaintiffs were residing at Javra and there had already been a partitio