The main legal point established in the judgment is that relinquishment of share in joint Hindu family property does not require a written and registered deed to be legally enforceable, as evidenced by the various judgments cited by the court.

JUDGMENT

J.P.Gupta, J. - This appeal has been directed against the decree dated 31.3.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narshinghpur in Ist Civil Appeal No. 14-A/98 reversing the decree of rejection of the suit dated 31.7.1998 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Gadarwara, in Civil Suit No. 45-A/94, and the plaintiffs/respondents have been declared owner of the suit premises and also declared that the sale deed dated 28.11.1998 executed in favour of the appellant is not binding of the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellant is also directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit premisses to the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. In this case, these facts are admitted that earlier the suit premises was of the ownership of the Rambagas @ Ramcharan and who died after leaving four sons, namely, Dulichand, Babulal, Kanhaiyalal and Mathura Prasad that they have also died and Kanhaiyalal and Babulal had no children and Babulal died leaving his wife Jai Bai. Respondents/plaintiffs are heirs of Moolchand, who was the son of Dulichand and the appellant is son of Mathura Prasad and there are other two children of Mathura Prasad one son Gopal and one daughter Rajan Bai and the suit premises is the part of house, which was left by Rambagas @ Ramcharan and situated towards house of Bishan Seth at Subhash Marg, Gadarwara.

3. On behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, ancestor Moolchand filed the suit and he had died during the proceeding of the suit and the representatives are legal heirs of him. Jai Bai, defendant no. 1 was also died without having any legal heir. The suit was filed with regard to suit premises, alleging that after the death of Rambagas his all four sons were residing separately on their own portion of the house and the suit premises was in possession of Dulichand and Moolchand and before one year in rainy season, some part of the portion of the plaintiffs/respondents destroyed, when they made efforts to repair the damaged part, the appellants/defendants objected by saying that the suit premises has been purchased by him from Jai Bai, original defendant no. 1, wife of Babulal, who was owner of the suit premises, while Jai Bai was not owner of the suit premises, therefore, sale deed is not binding on them and prayer was made that the plaintiffs be declared the owner of the suit premises and the sale deed be declared to be void and the defendants be directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises.

4. Appellants/Defendants in written statement replied that ancestors of plaintiff/respondent, namely, Dulichand, near about 50 years, before relinquish, had share in the house in lieu of Rs. 500/- and left village and settled at village of Codia and purchased land at village Chirahcala by sale deed dated 23.6.1941. Thereafter, neither Dulichand nor his heirs including plaintiffs came to reside in the house and wife of Babulal and Kanhaiyalal were residing and appellants/defendants also reside in his portion of the house and he had purchased the house from the wife of Babulal by sale deed dated 28.11.1988, thereafter, he is owner of the suit premises and also has possession in suit premises. Accordingly, the plaintiffs has no right to get any relief with regard to suit premises, moreover the plaintiff has not impleaded other heirs of Mathura Prasad, namely, Gopal and Rajani Bai, on account of this error, the suit is not maintainable. Hence the suit be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court after trial dismissed the suit holding that 50 years before Dulichand relinquished his share in lieu of Rs. 500/- in favour of the other share holders/coparceners and resided in another village and purchased land there and the plaintiff was not in possession, on the basis of mutual partition and there is no defect of non-joinder of the party.

6. The aforesaid findings were challenged before the appellate Court and learned appellate Court set-aside the decree of the trial Court and arrived at the conclusion that the suit pr