A co-parcener in a joint Hindu family property has a joint interest and a joint possession, and thus has title over the property, and a deed of relinquishment executed by a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family property to another co-parcener is valid and conveys title to the transferee.

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. This is Plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit house as also for the value of the iron chest or for compensation in regard thereto. Civil Judge, Class II, Mungeli, by judgment and decree dated 23.11.1978 passed in C.S. No. 6-A/73 partly decreed the Plaintiffs suit by granting decree of joint possession. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same preferred appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1-A of 1989 whereas the appeal preferred by defendeant No. 2 was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2-A of 1989 before the lower appellate Court. Fifth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, disposed of both the appeals by common judgment and decree dated 28.2.1989. He dismissed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, but allowed the appeal preferred by Defendant No. 2. Result to the same is that the entire suit of the Plaintiff has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, Plaintiff has preferred this appeal and by order dated 13.12.1996 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

i. Wheher on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below was justified in holding that the property was joint Hindu Family property without appreciating the admission made by the Defendant Lal Chand himself ?

ii. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the relinquishment deed would convey any title in favour of the Lal Chand when admittedly on the date of the execution of the document he had no existing title in his favour ?

iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale deed executed by Jasraj in favour of Lal Chand was sham and not to be acted upon and being without consideration, obsolutely invalid ?

3. Plaintiff Askaran is the father whereas Defendant No. 2 Lal Chand is his son. Plaintiff Askaran died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal is being pursued by his heirs and legal repesentatives. According to the Plaintiff, the suit house belonged to him and his father Jasraj which was purshased in the year 1929 in an auction sale. Suit house was mortgaged and the same was redeemed in the year 1949. According to the Plaintiff in the year 1957 partition took place in his family in which suit house fell into the share of Jasraj and he had absolute right over the same. It is the assertion of the Plaintiff that on 28.11.1957, he executed a deed of relinquishment, in which the name of Defendant No. 2 Lal Chand has also been mentioned. In spite of that, he did not derive any title over the suit house as he had no title in the same prior to the execution of deed of relinquishment. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Jasraj had debts of several persons and in order to seve the property from attachment and auction, he executed a nominal sale deed with respect to half share of the suit house on 15.7.1959, but Jasraj continued in possession of the house till his death on 30.4.1964. After the death of Jasraj, acording to the paintiff, he inherited the suit house. According to the Plaintiff in the suit accommodation there was an iron chest valued at Rs. 500/-, key of wihch is in his possession.

4. Case of the Plaintiff further is that Defendant No. 2 Lal Chand never resided in the suit house and he had gone Bhilai -Charoda for business purpose and presently he resides at Sobhani in the district of Rajnandga on. According to the Plaintiff Lal Chand has no title over the suit house and the sale deed executed by him in favour of his brother-in-law Defendant No. 1 Prithwiraj on 2.8.1972 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- is illegal. It is the assertion of the Plaintiff that on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, Defendant no 1 broke open the lock, took possession of the house and removed the iron chest. Further case of the Plaintiff is that Defendants 1 and 2 have no right to induct Defendant No. 3 as the tenant. In the aforesaid premises, Plaintiff filed the suit for