The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to determine the limitation period for challenging the relinquishment deed. Additionally, the judgment clarifies the admissibility of unstamped documents under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. Nos. 34210/2017 & 34212/2017 (for exemptions)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

C.M. Appl. Nos. 34208/2017 & 34211/2017

These are applications seeking condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal and 46 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed and the delays of filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned.

C.Ms. stand disposed of.

RFA No. 797/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 34209/2017 (for stay)

1. This regular first appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial court dated 22.12.2016, as amended by the order dated 20.3.2017 with respect to the correct description of the property, whereby the suit for partition filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed with respect to the suit property 258, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi–110051.

2. The admitted facts are that the suit property belonged to the father Sh. Nand Lal Saini in terms of a registered sale deed dated 30.7.1960. It is further admitted that the father Sh. Nand Lal Saini died intestate on 10.6.1993 and consequently the suit propoety devolved upon all his legal heirs being the mother of Sh. Nand Lal Saini, his widow and his children. The mother of Sh. Nand Lal Saini as also the daughters of Sh. Nand Lal Saini being the present appellants had executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 9.9.1993 with respect to suit property relinquishing their rights in the suit property in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs. Parties to the suit and the appeal are the sons and daughters of late Sh. Nand Lal Saini with the appellants being daughters and the respondents/plaintiffs being the sons.

3. Subject suit for partition was therefore filed by the respondents/plaintiffs pleading that they were the owners of the suit property, except to the extent of the share of the mother of the parties which she received in terms of the relinquishment deed dated 9.9.1993, and which share will devolve equally upon the parties to the suit being the children of Sh. Nand Lal Saini and his widow being the mother of the appellants/defendants and the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. Appellants/defendants, the daughters, contested the suit as also filed a counter-claim for cancellation of the relinquishment deed dated 9.9.1993 executed by them in the favor of their mother and the respondents/plaintiffs/brothers. It was pleaded by the appellants/defendants/counter-claimants that they were emotionally blackmailed to relinquish their share in the suit property in favour of their mother and the respondents/plaintiffs/brothers.

5. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed issues, and parties led evidence, and which aspects are stated in paras 6 to 8 of the judgment of the trial court and these paragraphs read as under:-

“ISSUES:-

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of partition in respect of property i.e Plot No.258, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, as prayed for? OPP.

(3) Whether the counter claimant is entitled for a decree for concellation of relinquishment deed dated 16.07.1993 qua the defendant no.1 as prayed for? OPC.

(4) Whether the counter claimant is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit property? OPC.

(5) Relief.”

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES

7. PW1 Shri Manjeet Singh has proved his affidavit as Ex.PW1/1.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PLAINTIFF:-