Inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hinge on the proper execution of relinquishment deeds.

1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered by this Court in this plaintiff's second appeal are as under: -

'(1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial court only on the ground that the relinquishment deed of respondent No. 1 has not been properly executed

(2) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that respondent No.1 would be entitled for share in his maternal grand father's property in spite of the fact that his mother has died prior to the death of his maternal grand father '

2. The imperative facts required for determination of abovestated substantial questions of law are as under: -

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court]

2.1 The original plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title that though the suit property has been recorded as a joint family property in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 at Village Chhediya but they are the exclusive owner and title holder of the suit land as defendant No. 1 is the son of Budhantin Bai, who is the daughter of Durjan and Budhantin Bai died prior to the death of Durjan and as such Budhantin Bai had no right in the property of her father therefore, defendant No. 1 is not entitled for share in the suit property and he has also relinquished the property by Ikrar Nama executed on 24.06.1989 vide Ex. P / 3 therefore, the decree for declaration of title be granted in favour of the plaintiffs as they are the title holder of the suit land.

2.2 The defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement stating inter alia that the bare suit for declaration of title is not maintainable as per the order of Revenue Court dated 23.02.1996, the plaintiffs' and defendant No. 1 both are in the joint possession of the suit land and in the revenue records the land has already been partitioned and recorded in their names separately and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs are the title holder of the suit land and even otherwise, the defendant No. 1 has relinquished his share in the suit property by Ikrar Nama dated 24.06.1986 (Ex. P / 3). On appeal being preferred by defendant No. 1, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that defendant No. 1 being the son of Budhantin Bai would succeed the property as per Class - 1 heir under S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act of 1956') and further held that the unregistered Ikrar Nama relinquishing his share is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, dismissed the suit.

4. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under S.100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the defendants in which the substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court, as set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Atul Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / plaintiffs would submit that the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by holding that relinquish deed Ex. P / 3 is inadmissible in evidence and further committed illegality in holding that defendant No. 1 would succeed being Class - I heir in the suit property.

6. Mr. Anurag Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / Defendant No. 1 would support the judgment and decree.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the