The court affirmed that a relinquishment deed executed by the deceased plaintiff was valid and not challenged within the limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the partition suit.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.280/2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings, before the trial Court. The Appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration, partition, and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the deceased plaintiff, Basappa, and defendants No.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu joint family. The husband of defendant No.1 by the name Yallappa, was the kartha of the joint family. The suit schedule properties were inherited by the deceased Yallappa from his mother’s side. According to him, they are his ancestral properties. From 1965 onwards, till the date of filing of the present suit, the suit schedule properties were in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. Defendant No.2, being the brother of the deceased plaintiff, who was a Government employee, taking advantage of the fact that, the deceased plaintiff is a drunkard, and encashing his drawback, got executed a registered relinquishment deed in his favour, by promising that he would financially help the deceased plaintiff, regarding the land bearing R.S.No.98/2 measuring 8 acres 9 guntas of Halligeri village. It is contended by the deceased plaintiff that, it was projected by defendant No.2 to him that, the documents executed by the deceased plaintiff is a mortgage deed, wherein defendant no.2 would enjoy the property for a period of 10 years, by also making use of usufructs and then, will have to then reconvey the property to the deceased plaintiff. It was a false projection on the part of defendant no.2. Defendant No.2 concocted the document dated 17.2.2004. The deceased plaintiff’s wife met defendant No.2, and requested him to return the agricultural land. Though, defendant No.2 promised that, he would reconvey the agricultural land, but went on postponing on one or the other pretext. The deceased plaintiff had no occasion to execute a relinquishment deed regarding the property in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2, to deprive the legitimate share of the deceased plaintiff over the property, and also taking advantage of the fact that the deceased plaintiff is a drunkard and is illiterate, duped him. Defendant no.2 refused to execute the reconveyance deed regarding the land in R.S No.98/2. Hence, a cause of action arose for the deceased plaintiff to file a suit for declaration, partition, and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1 Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that, the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation. It is contended that the description of the suit properties shown in the plaint is incorrect, and also the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff is incorrect and misleading. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that, some of the items of the suit schedule properties were inherited by Yallappa from his mother’s end. It is contended that, there was a partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 as per ‘afasath watni’ in 1965. The respective parties were put in possession of their immovable properties. It is denied that, the deceased plaintiff was a drunkard, and defendant No.2 taking advantage executed a registered relinquishment deed in his favour. It is contended that, in 2004 itself, the deceased plaintiff executed a relinquishment deed, and the same was registered. D