Partition of joint property confers a continuous cause of action, exempt from fixed limitation periods unless adverse possession is proved. Crucially, title established by registered instruments cannot be extinguished by revenue entries alone; any relinquishment of rights in immovable property mandates a registered document under statutory requirements.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2018, by which the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No.333 of 2011 in connection with land bearing survey No.682 and confirmed the judgment and decree in regards to land bearing survey No.683. Both parcels of land are situated at village Tintoda, Dist: Gandhinagar. The learned appellate Court declared that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 have equal share in land bearing survey No. 682 and further directed the learned trial Court to draw preliminary decree to give equal shares to the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 in land bearing survey No. 682.

2. The appellants are original defendant Nos.1 to 4. Amongst respondents, respondent Nos.1 to 2 are original plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the original defendants.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

4. The factual matrix in nutshell, born out of the records, are as under:-

4.1 The plaintiffs filed the Special Civil Suit before the learned civil Court, Gandhinagar for partition of land bearing survey No. 682 admeasuring 5-22-05 hectare- are-sq mtr (in short “suit land”) and land bearing survey No. 683 admeasuring 0-69-81 hectare- are-sq mtr claiming that the plaintiffs have undivided 2/3rd share in the suit land. The plaintiffs also claimed relief to partition the suit land by metes and bounds and further asked for the relief of permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land.

4.2 The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief on the averment that the plaintiff Lilaben and the defendant No.1 Samuben are real sisters, whereas, deceased Kacharaji was their father. Kacharaji died on 20.11.2000 survived by three daughters viz. plaintiffs Lilaben and Punjiben and defendant Samuben. According to the plaintiffs, the ancestral properties were situated in village Jodhpur and Vejalpur of Ahmedabad district. Said ancestral properties consisting of land bearing survey Nos.284/1, 321, 325/2,327/2,408, 707/2 and some other parcels of land of Mouje village Jodhpur and Vejalpur ran in name of Kacharaji Antaji. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have right by birth in the ancestral properties and they were coparceners in the ancestral properties. Kacharaji sold lands at village Jodhpur and Vejalpur and out of sale consideration received from selling of those lands, purchased land bearing survey No. 682 and 683 in village Tintoda, Dist: Gandhinagar. These are the subject matter of the suit.

4.3 The suit land was purchased by way of registered sale deed on 19.5.1980 jointly in name of Kacharaji Antaji, plaintiff Lilaben and defendant No.1 Samuben. Land bearing survey No. 683 was purchased on 31.5.1995 in name of defendant No.1, however, it is claimed by the plaintiff that sale consideration for purchasing land