S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The appellant in RFA(OS) 76/2013 [hereafter referred to as "Satyapal"] is aggrieved by a decree for possession. He is also aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit [CS(OS) 1399/2011] by the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2013. Satyapal was plaintiff in the at suit (for declaration and consequential relief- hereafter "declaration suit") and the defendant in CS (OS) 1480/2011. The respondent in the RFA(OS) 76/2013 who filed CS(OS) 1480/2011, ("the possession suit), and who is the brother of Satyapal shall hereafter be referred to as "Sudhir".

2. Satyapal had sought the relief of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of property being one-half share of the premises - a 21/2 storeyed property at K-155, Hauz Khas Enclave [hereafter referred to as "the suit property"]. Sudhir, in the possession suit, sought for a decree of possession and mesne profits, in respect of the suit property. The third proceeding, being FAO(OS) 327/2013 is preferred by Sudhir, who claims to be aggrieved by the said common order which decreed his possession suit and at the same time rejected the plaint in Satyapal's declaration suit to the extent that it holds that the declaration suit was not time-barred.

3. The brief facts are that Satyapal and Sudhir are brothers. Satyapal purchased one half share of the suit property from one Ms. Kamal Mathur by registered deed dated 29.12.1975. On the same day, i.e. on 29.12.1975, the co-owner of the other half share, Sh. Rajiv Mathur, son of Ms. Kamal Mathur conveyed his right, title and interest through a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. This sale deed, for the other half was executed in favour of Sudhir. CS(OS) 1399/2011, the declaration suit, contended that Sudhir, who was born on 02.12.1950 had gone abroad for completing his studies and returned to India in 1972 after which he got married in 1974. Satyapal stated that Sudhir used to stay with their eldest brother - Sh. K.C. Gupta and since he did not have enough funds, Satyapal thought it prudent to purchase a house in the joint name to enable Sudhir to live with him. At that time, Satyapal used to live in the ancestral house at Gali Bahuji, Pahari Dhiraj in old Delhi. Apparently, Sudhir never wished to live with Satyapal since he later acquired a 500 square yards plot of land being B-316, New Friends Colony [hereafter referred to as "the NFC property"] through a registered deed dated 04.12.1979. He built a house on the NFC property. Satyapal alleges that even for the acquisition of NFC property, Sudhir borrowed money from Satyapal HUF.

4. In the declaration suit, Satyapal alleged that since he and Sudhir were brothers, they both agreed that the entire Suit property, including Sudhir's half share would vest in Satyapal HUF and Rs. 2 lakhs paid by Satyapal for acquiring the half share would be set-off by relinquishing his title in the said property. Satyapal avers that the suit property always belonged to him and that Sudhir never had any interest in the property, having never lived there nor having invested any money in it. In the declaration suit, it was contended by Satyapal that their parents always lived with him and not with Sudhir till their deaths.

5. The suit further avers that:

".......the defendant verbally released his half portion in the property in favor of plaintiff in 70s itself when he acquired his own house with a promise to execute the release/relinquishment deed in favor of the plaintiff soon...."

6. The declaration suit further states that the money to purchase the half share of the suit property - in issue before the Court was entirely paid by Satyapal through a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- on 19.12.1975 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,67,500/- by a Banker's Pay Order No. 739566/1775 dated 29.12.1975. It was further stated that Satyapal took possession of the Suit property and shifted there with his family and parents and that Sudhir never shifted there. I