The court ruled that relinquishment of property rights must be evidenced by registered documents to be valid, and defendants' failure to produce such evidence undermines their claim.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the civil appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants herein/plaintiffs have filed this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment & decree dated 29-8-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.26A/2011, by which the learned Additional District Judge/trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff finding no merit.

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. Following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among the parties:-

3. Sahukar Verma was the original land owner who died in the year 1963-64. His first wife Ramkunwar had three sons and his second wife Meena Bai had two sons and three daughters, who are defendants No.1 & 2 and the plaintiffs, respectively. The dispute with regard to the suit property, firstly, was the subject matter of Civil Suit No.71A/1985 which was disposed of by the Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari vide judgment & decree dated 28-2-1986 by way of compromise entered into between sons of first wife Ramkunwar on the one hand and sons & daughters of second wife Meena Bai on the other hand and following decree was passed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment:-

4. In compliance with the decree passed by the trial Court on 28-2-86, the suit property came to be registered jointly in the names of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 vide Ex.P-2 by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiffs that their names were got deleted by defendants No.1 & 2 as per the agreement dated 19-3-1991 vide Ex.P-9 which is per se a forged document and defendant No.2 taking advantage of mutation in their names, sold his share to defendant No.3 to the extent of 1.24 hectares by sale deed dated 13-9-2011 leading to filing of suit for declaration of title and partition relating to 1/5 share in the suit property.

5. Defendant No.1 filed separate written statement stating inter alia that after death of Meena Bai, only the names of defendants No.1 & 2 have been recorded in the revenue records on the basis of agreement dated 19-3-1991 by which the plaintiffs have received their share in the suit property and names of defendants No.1 & 2 came to be recorded, as such, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property.

6. Defendant No.2 has also filed separate written statement stating inter alia that as per agreement dated 19-3-1991, names of defendants No.1 & 2 came to be rerecord in the revenue documents and thereafter, defendant No.2 has sold the land in question to defendant No.3 on 13-9-2011, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court has framed issues and answered the same in paragraph 7 of its judgment, which states as under: -

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs have examined Dasoda Bai (PW-1) in their defence and exhibited twenty documents Exs.P-1 to P-20 to prove their case, however, the defendants have neither examined any witness nor entered into the witness box to prove their case.

9. The trial Court by the impugned judgment & decree dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have relinquished their share in the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2 by agreement dated 19-3-1991 leading to filing of this appeal.

10. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by recording a finding which is pervers