Minors cannot be deprived of their ancestral property rights through relinquishment by a parent; such actions require explicit consent of the minors involved.

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein for partition and separate possession, was dismissed.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit and they will be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court in the suit for the sake of convenience.

3. As could be seen from the material available on record including the impugned Judgment, it manifests that the plaintiffs are the sons of the first wife of defendant No.2, whereas while defendant No.1 and her husband Yaseen are grandparents of the plaintiffs. They stated that defendant No.2 developed illicit intimacy with defendant No.4 and begot two children and also willfully deserted the plaintiffs and their mother about 5 years back. From then onwards, they along with their mother have been residing separately at Jagitial. Prior to that they lived in a joint family property left behind by their grandfather bearing Municipal No.5-6-97 (Old 4-3-78) situated at Jagtial, originally which stands in his name and after his demise it was nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.4. They also stated that their father-defendant No.2 constructed a house at Karimnagar bearing Municipal No.6-1-56 with joint family funds, but it was kept in the name of defendant No.4 to deprive their rights. As such, they are entitled to claim share as per Mohammedian Law. They stated that defendant No.2, who is the father of plaintiffs, after deducting 1/8residing separately at Jagitial. Prior to that they lived in a joint family property left behind by their grandfather bearing Municipal No.5-6-97 (Old 4-3-78) situated at Jagtial, originally which stands in his name and after his demise it was nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.4. They also stated that their father-defendant No.2 constructed a house at Karimnagar bearing Municipal No.6-1-56 with joint family funds, but it was kept in the name of defendant No.4 to deprive their rights. As such, they are entitled to claim share as per Mohammedian Law. They stated that defendant No.2, who is the father of plaintiffs, after deducting 1/8residing separately at Jagitial. Prior to that they lived in a joint family property left behind by their grandfather bearing Municipal No.5-6-97 (Old 4-3-78) situated at Jagtial, originally which stands in his name and after his demise it was nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.4. They also stated that their father-defendant No.2 constructed a house at Karimnagar bearing Municipal No.6-1-56 with joint family funds, but it was kept in the name of defendant No.4 to deprive their rights. As such, they are entitled to claim share as per Mohammedian Law. They stated that defendant No.2, who is the father of plaintiffs, after deducting 1/8residing separately at Jagitial. Prior to that they lived in a joint family property left behind by their grandfather bearing Municipal No.5-6-97 (Old 4-3-78) situated at Jagtial, originally which stands in his name and after his demise it was nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.4. They also stated that their father-defendant No.2 constructed a house at Karimnagar bearing Municipal No.6-1-56 with joint family funds, but it was kept in the name of defendant No.4 to deprive their rights. As such, they are entitled to claim share as per Mohammedian Law. They stated that defendant