In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts' judgments suffer from perversity, illegality, or manifest legal error.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.31/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.789/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2021 in R.A.No.31/2019 passed by the first Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.02.2019 in OS.No.789/2013 by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father late. Akbar Sab was the original owner of the suit schedule property, and he acquired the suit schedule property by way of a registered partition deed between himself and his brother Mohammed Sab. In the said partition, site bearing No.311 measuring 15 X 60 feet had fallen to the share of Mohammed Sab, i.e., the father of the defendants and Akbar Sab. This being the state of affairs, the said Mohammed Sab, taking undue advantage of the permissive possession of the suit schedule property, managed to obtain some signatures on the stamp papers and converted the same to a relinquishment deed. The relinquishment deed is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. There was no consideration paid in the relinquishment deed. It is also stated that the father of the plaintiffs, namely Akbar Sab, died on 09.04.2005. His brother, Mohammed Sab, also died, leaving behind the legal heirs, i.e., defendants.

5. It is stated that the defendants now are in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs demanded possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants, who went on dodging and did not hand over the possession. Therefore, left with no alternative, the plaintiffs who are the children of Akbar Sab filed suit against Mohammed Sab and his children. The suit came to be filed seeking the relief of cancellation of the relinquishment deed dated 18.08.1995 and to declare the relinquishment deed to be null and void and for the delivery of the possession.

6. Upon summons being served to the defendants, the defendants appeared and filed a statement taking a plea that the suit is barred by law of limitation as the registered relinquishment deed is dated 21.11.1995 and Akbar Sab died on 09.04.2005. It was also pleaded that Akbar Sab did not challenge the relinquishment deed during his lifetime. The khata of the property has been transferred into the name of Mohammed Sab and Akbar Sab had given up his rights in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his brother Mohammed Sab during his lifetime. It was also pleaded by the defendants that after receiving the consideration amount, Akbar Sab executed the relinquishment deed, having knowledge of the same. The defendants denied any misrepresentation or fraud having been committed. It is also stated that plaintiffs with an intention to extract money from the defendants have filed the false suit.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the t