The main legal point established in the judgment is that a deed of release/relinquishment (Ext.3) must validly pass right, title, or interest in the property to be effective. In this case, Ext.3 was found to be invalid and did not pass any right, title, or interest in the property to Defendant No.2.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellants by filing this Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Gunupur in R.F.A. No.8 of 2006. By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gunupur in Title Suit No.17 of 1983. The Courts below have decreed the Suit for partition by passing a preliminary decree.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

It is pertinent to state here that the Suit for partition had originally been filed by one Sisti Suryamani (Original Plaintiff No.1) with her two daughters, namely, Sashi Sunkari (Original Plaintiff No.2) and Sabitri Pradhan (Plaintiff No.3). The Original Plaintiff No.1, Sisti Suryamani having died during the pendency of the Suit, Shyama Sundar Sunkari claiming as the legatee to the share of Sisti Suryamani under a Will executed by her in his favour has been substituted in her place. This Shyam Sundar has been assigned with the position as Plaintiff No.1 and he is none other than the son of the Plaintiff No.2 i.e. the grandson of original Plaintiff No.1 (daughter's son). The original Plaintiff No.2 and 3 having died during Suit, their sons and daughters have come be substituted Plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 and 2 having died, their legal representatives are arraigned as Defendants.

The unsuccessful Defendants had preferred an Appeal under section 96 of the Code and that having been dismissed confirming the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court under challenge, the present Appeal is at the instance of the Defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c).

3. Plaintiffs case is that one Sisti Neelakanta died in and around the year 1953 leaving behind his widow Sisti Suryamani (original Plaintiff No.1) and three daughters, namely, Annapurna Sunkari (original Defendant No.1), Sashi Kunkari (original Plaintiff No.2) and Sabitri Pradhan (Plaintiff No.3). The suit land belonged to late Sisti Neelakanta and on her death, it came to be recorded in the name of her wife Sisti Suryamani, the original Plaintiff No.1. The houses are situated over the said land. Defendant No.2 being the elder son-in-law of the original Plaintiff No.1 was assisting her in the management of the family properties as Sisti Neelakanta had no son and Sisti Suryamani, the widow of Sisti Neelakanta was a paradanasin illiterate lady. It is stated that in the year 1970, Sisti Suryamani and Defendant No.2 together obtained a loan of Rs.6,000/- from the Land Mortgage Bank, Rayagada for excavation of a tank and for the purpose, the land was required to be mortgaged. The tank although was excavated, it however did not serve the desired purpose. The Defendant No.2 then proposed to have a lift irrigation point there and for the purpose, he wanted further loan to be incurred. So, it is alleged that Defendant No.2 took a document from the original Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.2 installed one pump set. Defendant No.2 is said to have played the mischief in creating that document. In course of time, it came to be known that said Defendant No.2 by abusing his position and betraying the trust and confidence reposed on him by his motherin-law, misrepresenting the fact has practised fraud and obtained a document styled as 'Release/Relinquishment Deed' from Plaintiff No.1 on the score that she had relinquished her right over the suit property in favour of the original Defendant No.2. He then carried out mutation behind the back of everyone. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that by the said document and the consequential recording of the land, no right, title and interest in respect of the very same land has passed on to the hands of the original Defendant No.2 and the transaction being void is nonest in the eye