JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara in O.S.No.50/2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Thimmaiah, who has executed a Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.06.1959 when the plaintiff was a minor. The parents of the plaintiff have relinquished the suit schedule property in favour of wife of the Thimmaiah Smt. Harvathamma, who is none other than the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

4. Further case of the plaintiff is that in the month of August 1998, when the defendant Nos.1 to 3 made an attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, the plaintiff came to know that there was a Relinquishment Deed executed by his parents in favour of Harvathamma on 27.05.1960. Immediately, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking following reliefs:

“a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the schedule property by virtue of the registered Gift Deed dated 23-6-1959;

b) Declare that the alleged Relinquishment Deed dated: 25-7-1960 is concocted, fabricated document and it is illegal, null, void and not binding on the plaintiff and direct the 5th defendant Sub-Registrar, Magadi, to cancel the said registered Relinquishment Deed, which is registered as No.2662, Book-I, Volume 1193, pages 13 to 15;

c) Direct the 4th defendant - Tahasildar, Magadi Taluk, to cancel the mutation entries in M.R.No.2/98-99 (IHC) made in favour of the defendant No.1 to 3 and to change the mutation entries in favour of the plaintiff;

d) Granting Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 3, their agents, representatives, power of attorney holders and anybody acting on his behalf from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or encumbrance on the schedule property to anybody else;

e) Granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 their agents, representatives, power of attorney holders, henchmen, supporters and anybody acting on their behalf, form trespassing, interfering, meddling or otherwise disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the schedule property of dispossessing him:

f) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the Circumstances of the case, including costs of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity.”

5. On service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He has approached the Court after inordinate delay of 35 years. In view of Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short), he has to file a suit within a period of three years from the date of he attains the age of majority. The plaintiff became major in the year 1965 and the suit has been filed in the year 2002. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Further he contended that the plaintiff’s parents have executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of Harvathamma for the legal necessity of the plaintiff. After the property has been relinquished in favour of the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3, they have made a lot of investments in the property and they are in the possession of the property. He further contended that from the sale consideration amount, the plaintiff’s father has purchased the property for the benefit of the family. He further contended that immediately after the Relinquishment Deed, the khatha has been changed in the name of Harvathamma. Even though, the plaintiff was aware of the same, he has not appr