The validity of a relinquishment deed and the applicability of the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963 are crucial in determining the outcome of a partition suit.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 30.11.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 17.8.2016; by which the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration, partition and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. The relief clauses of the plaint read as under:-

“PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice the following judgment/order, decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in respect of the property no. 118, Ram Nagar, Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051, which is more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan:-

(a) A decree for partition among the legal heirs of Late Sh. Nazar Singh i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the property bearing no. 118, Ram Nagar, Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 be passed for the partition of the share of the plaintiffs.

(b) A decree be also passed to declare the alleged relinquishment deed dated 13-08-1999 & the relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant no. 1 dated 16.05.2002 as alleged be declared as null and void.

(c) A decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, successors, assignees, etc. from making any alternation, addition, from sale or reconstruct, from creating any third party interest over the suit property bearing no. 118, Ram Nagar, Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi- 110051.

(d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

3. The courts below have found as a finding of fact that all the appellants/plaintiffs/sisters had executed the registered relinquishment deed dated 13.8.1999, Ex. PW1/D1, relinquishing their share in the suit property no. 118, Ram Nagar, near Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51, measuring 98 sq. yds in favour of the brother/defendant no. 1/Sh. Baldev Singh. Accordingly, the courts below have held that the appellants/plaintiffs therefore cannot seek partition of the suit property on the ground that the property belonged to the father of the parties namely Sh. Nazar Singh.

4. The relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/D1 in this case is of 13.8.1999. Since appellants/ plaintiffs are admittedly signatories to this relinquishment deed, any challenge to such a relinquishment deed as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had to be within 3 years when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument cancelled or set aside first became known to the plaintiffs. Being very much the executants of the relinquishment deed, appellants/plaintiffs are from the date of execution deemed to have known the contents of the relinquishment deed, and therefore, the subject suit had to be filed within 3 years from 13.8.1999. It was not open to an executant of a document to contend that the executant did not know the contents of the document. The suit was originally filed in the year 2010 i.e. after around 11 years and was therefore rightly held by the courts below to be barred by limitation. In fact, the courts below have held that the case of the appellants/ plaintiffs was that on 15.12.2004 they came to know about the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 13.8.1999 and therefore, even taking this date 15.12.2004 as the date for commencement of limitation, the subject suit for declaration as illegal/void/bad of the relinquishment deed had to be filed by 15.12.2007 but was filed in the year 2010 and clearly therefore the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation.

5. I may note that the first appellate court by the impugned judgment has held that PW-1 Smt. Ravindra Kaur, plaintiff no. 6, who deposed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs left her parental home after marriage on 13.4.1993 and therefore, there was no reason to