JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellants/LRs. of original plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 15.01.2015 by formulating the following two substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether even in the admitted pleading the self acquired property can be relinquished in favour of another by virtue of Section 173 of C.G. Land Revenue Code even if beneficiary do not have share in it?

(ii) Whether as against the provisions of Transfer of Property Act the immovable property can be transferred?”

The parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown in the plaint before the trial Court.

2. Original plaintiff as well as defendant No. 2 both are sons of defendant No. 1 namely Gambhira, who out of his free will and desire, executed relinquishment deed dated 29.07.1985 (Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/9) in favour of his son/defendant No. 2 thereby, relinquished the suit property shown in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ annexed with the plaint in his favour and got it registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908. Plaintiff filed a suit, during the lifetime of his father Gambhira and impleading him as a party/defendant No. 1 stating inter-alia that he be declared the co-owner of the suit property as the suit property is the ancestral property of the parties and decree with regard to that be granted in his favour. In alternative, averment was also made by the plaintiff that the relinquishment deed executed by his father defendant No. 1 in favour of his brother defendant No. 2 on 29.07.1985 (Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/9) is illegal and bad in law and the mutation made on that basis is also illegal, therefore, appropriate decree be granted in his favour.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the plaintiff stating inter-alia that the suit property is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 which he purchased on 24.05.1978 by his own income and as such, he can relinquish the said suit property in favour of his other son i.e. defendant No. 2, therefore, plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property and the relinquishment deed (Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/9) executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2 with the consent of his wife Patango Bai is strictly in accordance with law, as such, plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that defendant No. 1 Gambhira died during the pendency of the suit on 07.08.1993.

5. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.1988 holding that the suit property shown in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the plaint is not the ancestral property of the parties rather it is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 and the relinquishment deed dated 29.08.1985 (Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/9) executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is strictly in accordance with law, as such, plaintiff does not have right or title in the suit property. In turn, the decree of the trial Court having been questioned before the first appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff suffered the same fate as learned first appellate Court too, finding no merit in the second round of litigation after the matter being remanded from this Court, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in which two substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

6. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellants/LRs. of plaintiff, would vehemently submit that since the suit property is admittedly the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1, as held by both the Courts below, therefore, he could not have executed t