: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL RSA NO.100016 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) C/W RSA NO.5544 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) & RSA CROB. NO.100001/2021(DEC/INJ) RSA NO.100016/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. ANDAPPA @ ANANDAPPA CHAWAN, AGE: ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 2. SMT. CHAMPABAI W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JALIPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. AKKATAI W/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 3. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. 4. SHRI. MANOHAR S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010 5. SHAMBAJI S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE) : 2 : AND: SHRI. VASANT S/O. ANNASAB CHAWAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. SMT. YAMANA W/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 2. SMT. SHANTA D/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 3. SHRI. DATTA S/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 4. SHRI. MARUTI S/O VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 5. SMT. SUNITA W/O. MAHADEV SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR NOT KNOWN, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG STATION, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317. 6. SMT. BHIMABAI W/O. RAJU SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR NOT KNOWN, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG STATION, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317. 7. MAHADEVI D/O. ANDAPPA @ ANANDAPPA RAO CHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR NOT KNOWN, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: RAIBAG STATION, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317. SHRI. BHIMA S/O. RAMA MANE NOW DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 8. SMT. RUKMINI W/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 52 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 9. SHRI. VISHNU S/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 31 YEAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, : 3 : R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 10. KUMARI UJAWALA D/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 26 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. SHIRKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R9 & R10) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.220/2008 DATED 31.05.2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG BE SET ASIDE; CONSEQUENTLY O.S.NO.200/1994 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) RAIBAG DATED 26.03.2005 BE DECREED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., RSA NO.5544/2013: BETWEEN: SHRI. BHIMA S/O. RAMA MANE NOW DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1a. SMT. RUKMINI W/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 45 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 1b. SHRI. VISHNU S/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 24 YEAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 1c. KUMARI UJAWALA D/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 19 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIRKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. VASANT S/O. ANNASAB CHAWAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1A. SMT. YAMANA W/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. : 4 : 1B. SMT. SHANTA D/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 1C. SHRI. DATTA S/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 1D. SHRI. MARUTI S/O VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 2. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. ANDAPPA CHAWAN, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG - 591 217. 3. SMT. CHAMPABAI W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JALIPUR, TQ: RAIBAG – 591 317. 4. SMT. AKKATAYI W/O. YASHWANT JADHAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 4A. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR,(MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. 4B. SHRI. MANOHAR S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010 4C. SHRI. SHAMBAJI S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO D); SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO C)] THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG IN R.A.NO.216/2008 DATED 31.05.2013 : 5 : CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.05/1994 DATED 26.03.2005 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) RAIBAG SET ASIDE AND ETC., RSA CR. OB. NO.100001/2021: BETWEEN: SMT. AKKATAYI W/O. YASHWANT JADHAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 1. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR,(MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. 2. SHRI. MANOHAR S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010 3. SHAMBAJI S/O. YASHWANTRAO JADHAV, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARNOBATWADI, TQ: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR, (MAHARASTRA) – 416 010. … CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. VASANT S/O ANNASAB CHAVAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. SMT. YAMANA W/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 2. SMT. SHANTA D/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 3. SHRI. DATTA S/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. : 6 : 4. SHRI. MARUTI S/O. VASANT CHAWAN, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JALALPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. SHRI. BHIMA S/O. RAMA MANE NOW DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 5. SMT. RUKMINI W/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 52 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 6. SHRI. VISHNU S/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 31 YEAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 7. KUMARI UJAWALA D/O. BHEEMA MANE, AGE: 26 YEAS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JALALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. 8. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. ANDAPPA CHAWAN, AGE: ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 9. SMT. CHAMPABAI W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JALIPUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHIRKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7; SRI. VIJAY BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9) THIS RSA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORER XLI RULE 22 R/W SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.216/2008 DATED 31.05.2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG SET ASIDE CONSEQUENTLY O.S.NO.05/1994 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) RAIBAG DATED 26.03.2005 BE DECREED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30/06/2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: : 7 : CAV JUDGMENT 1. These appeals and cross-objection arise out of common Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2005, passed in O.S.No.5/1994 and O.S.No.200/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Raibag (for short `the trial Court'), by which the trial Court while partly decreeing the suit in O.S.No.5/1994 dismissed the suit in O.S.No.200/1994, which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2013, passed in R.A.Nos.216/2008 and 220/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag (for short “the First Appellate Court”). 2. Suit properties as described in O.S.No.5/1994 are: A) The landed properties which are agricultural lands situated at Raibag village in Raibag taluka for the suit property in this suit Sl. No. R.S.No. Area Assessment Location 1 772/1B 5A-00Gs. Rs.6-32ps Raibag 2 456/16 00A-26Gs. Rs.3-36ps Raibag Out of this ½ is the suit property 3 457/10 0A-10Gs. Rs.0-80ps Raibag Out of this ½ portion 4 456/11 0A-03Gs. 0-20ps Raibag out of this 1/4th portion is the suit property : 8 : The total value of the above said lands will be Rs.27,500/- B) The house property bearing T.M.C.No.662 situated at Raibag. The market value of the suit house property is Rs.12,000/-. 3. Suit in O.S. No.5/1994 is filed contending inter alia that one Annasab was the original propositus being in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That the said Annasab was married to one Anasuya and had two sons namely Anand also known as Anandappa and Vasant Annasab Chavan (the plaintiff). Anandappa the elder son passed away leaving behind his wife Smt.Susheela Anandappa Chavan (defendant No.1) and his three daughters as his legal heirs. That defendant Nos.2 and 3 are no way concerned with the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and they are not the daughters of Annasab as claimed by them. That the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only legal heirs of deceased Annasab. That after the demise of her husband, defendant No.1 is residing at Chincholi Station. That she had executed a relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 in favour of the plaintiff for a : 9 : consideration of Rs.25,000/- relinquishing the share of Anandappa. That upon the demise of Annasab, defendant Nos.2 and 3 claiming themselves to be his daughters have submitted varadhi and obtained mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties. That during last week of December 1993, the Assistant Commissioner had disposed off the RTS proceedings which were initiated by the plaintiff challenging the aforesaid mutation entry. Taking advantage of the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 apart from denying the right of the plaintiff are also obstructing his possession over the suit properties. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the heirs of Annasab being his daughters. Execution of relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff and receipt of any amount from the plaintiff is denied. It is contended that her daughters have not been made necessary party to the suit. That the suit properties : 10 : being ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and her sisters-in-law, defendant Nos.2 and 3, upon the demise of Annasab, have become entitled for legitimate share therein. That after the death of propositus Annasab, the names of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are shown as his heirs in the revenue records, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi, and the same has been dismissed. That the order of dismissal has not been challenged by the plaintiff. That since defendant No.1 was in need of money she had entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.4 who obtained decree from the competent Court for getting the deed of sale in his favour. The said decree has not been challenged by the plaintiff. That defendant No.1 has been in possession of her legitimate share in the suit properties. That defendant No.1 and her daughters have put defendant No.4 in possession of their share of the properties, which was confirmed after registering the deed of sale in favour of defendant No.4. Plaintiff is in possession of his 1/4th share and the said 1/4th share was also given to : 11 : the uncle of defendant No.4, who is in possession of the said 1/4th share, as such the plaintiff is not in possession of any of the suit properties. Attempts made by the plaintiff to have his name entered into the revenue records based on the alleged relinquishment deed have been rejected by the Tahsildar, Raibag, against which no appeal is filed. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement which is adopted by defendant No.3. It is contended that they are the sisters of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is the wife of their deceased brother Anandappa and defendant No.4 is the purchaser. That after the demise of Annasab, their names have been mutated in the revenue records vide ME No.3925. Against which RTS appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. That the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for legitimate share in the suit properties, hence sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.4 in his written statement contended that daughters of defendant No.1 namely : 12 : (i) Sunita, (ii) Bheemabai, and (iii) Mahadevi are not parties to alleged relinquishment deed being claimed by the plaintiff purported to have been executed on 20.08.1991. That the said document is false and fabricated. That after the death of Annasab in the year 1991, the names of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are shown in the record of rights as his legal heirs which has attained finality. That defendant Nos.1 to 3 having their 3/4th share in the suit properties had entered into agreement with defendant No.4, since they failed to execute the deed of sale, he filed suit in O.S. No.242/1994 seeking specific performance of the agreement which was dismissed. Appeal filed by the defendant No.4 in R.A. No.54/1995 was allowed directing defendant Nos.1 and 3 to execute deed of sale in his favour. As such he has become owner in possession to the extent of 3/4th share in the land and the plaintiff is in possession of only 1 acre 20 guntas of land. That the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with one Datta Krishna Mane, who is the uncle of defendant No.4 in respect of his portion of land and has delivered the same to : 13 : the said purchaser as such the plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the said land. Thus defendant No.4 and his uncle are in possession of the suit land. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Suit in O.S. No.200/1994 is filed by Smt. Susheela (defendant No.1 in O.S. No.5/1994), Smt.Sunita, Bhimabai and Mahadevi, the wife and daughters of Anandappa Chavan against Vasant Annasab Chavan (plaintiff in O.S.No.5/1994) for declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 was not binding on the plaintiffs and for the relief of permanent injunction. It is contended that they are the members of Hindu Joint Family and the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff, defendant and Champabai and Akkatai, the daughters of Annasab. That the plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along with the defendant jointly cultivating the same. There is no partition. Plaintiffs are entitled for 5/12th share in the suit property. That the revenue entries : 14 : reflecting the names of the plaintiffs and the defendant as the legal heirs of Annasab have attained finality. It is contended that during the year 1991, defendant had informed the plaintiffs that they will be allotted their legitimate share in the suit properties, which required execution and registration of a deed before the Sub- Registrar. Believing the said version, they had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar where the defendant had obtained signatures. Taking advantage of illiteracy the defendant had created the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 based on which he had obtained his name entered in the revenue records. On learning about the same, plaintiffs filed objections on 13.06.1994 which proceedings are pending consideration before the Revenue Court. Hence, the suit for relief of declaration and injunction. 8. Defendant (Vasant Annasab Chavan) filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiffs being in need of funds for their : 15 : necessity, had executed relinquishment deed in his favour on 20.08.1991 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. That the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. The said relinquishment deed bears the signature of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as witnesses. That defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties his name having been entered into the revenue records based on the said relinquishment deed. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. The Trial Court framed the following issues, additional issues and preliminary issue in O.S. No.5/1994 for its consideration: ISSUES: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are ancestral properties of him and defendant No.1? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 executed relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff for consideration ofRs.25,000/- on 20.08.1991? 3. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants No.2 and 3 themselves calling as daughters of deceased Annasab by taking undue advantage of their name in Record of Rigts denying the legal rights of the plaintiff over suit properties? : 16 : 4. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants No.2 and 3 are no way concerned with the plaintiff threatening to obstruct his possession over the suit properties? 5. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants No.2 and 3 are not the daughters of deceased Annasab? 6. Whether the defendants prove that defendants No.2 and 3 having 2/4th share in the suit lands? 7. What decree or Order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: A1. Whether the defendants No.1 to 3 prove that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? A2. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 further prove that suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action? Preliminary issue: 1. Whether defendant No.4 proves that the market value of the suit property is Rs.2,50,000/- and this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit? 10. The Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S. No.200/1994 for its consideration: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they came to know relinquishment deed only after receipt of summons in O.S.No.5/94? 2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that plaintiff No.1 during the year 1991 signed on some papers without knowing its contents, execution and registration? : 17 : 3. Whether plaintiffs entitled for the relief sought in this suit? 4. Whether defendant proves that there is no cause of action to this suit? 5. Whether the defendant further proves that suit is barred by limitation and not maintainable? 7. What decree or Order? 11. Plaintiff in O.S. No.5/1994 examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 36 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P36. He examined three additional witnesses as PW2 to PW4. On behalf of defendants, General Power Of Attorney holder has been examined as DW1 and exhibited 16 documents marked as Ex.D1 to D16. Defendant No.4 has been examined as DW2 and exhibited documents at Ex.D17 to D34. Another two witnesses have been examined as DW3 and DW4. 12. Similarly in O.S. No.200/1994 General Power Of Attorney holder of plaintiff therein has been examined as PW1 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P18. Two witnesses have been examined as PW2 and PW3. Defendant in the said suit has been examined as DW1 and : 18 : exhibited 5 documents at Ex.D1 to D5. One additional witness has been examined as DW2. 13. The Trial Court has taken up the aforesaid suits for common disposal. It has answered, issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative, issue No.6 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos.5, additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative in O.S. No.5/1994. It has answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the negative in O.S. No.200/1994 and consequently, decreed the suit in O.S. No.5/1994 declaring that plaintiff therein to be the owner of the suit land to the extent of 3/4th share in R.S. No.772/1B, 2/3rd share in R.S. No.456/16 and 2/3rd share in R.S. No.457/10 and 13/24th share in RS No.456/11, and right to use Well water situate in RS No.456/14 as per succession and right in terms of relinquishment deed and further restrained defendant Nos.2 and 3 by way of permanent injunction from obstructing the plaintiffs possession over the suit properties and dismissed the suit in O.S. No.200/1994. : 19 : 14. Being aggrieved, defendant No.4 in O.S. No.5/1994 namely Bhima filed regular appeal in R.A. No.216/2008 and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit in O.S. No.5/1994 filed regular appeal in R.A. No.220/2008. 15. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the trial court has not properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence of the parties? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is perverse and illegal? 3. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal needs modification at the hands of this court? 4. What order? 16. On re-appreciation answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2005 passed by the trial Court. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, Bhima the defendant No.4 in O.S. No.5/1994 (since deceased represented by his legal representatives) is before this : 20 : Court in RSA No.5544/2013. Smt. Susheela, Champabai and Akkatai the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in RSA No.100016/2021. Defendant No.3, Akkatai in O.S. No.5/1994 (since deceased represented by her legal representatives) has filed RSA Cross Objection No.100001/2021. 18. This Court by order dated 24.06.2025 admitted the aforesaid appeals and cross objection for consideration of the following substantial question of law: “Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff taking into consideration the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 as per Ex.P28 when the said document was executed only by Susheela wife of Anandappa, predeceased son of Annasab, without Champabai and Akkatai the other two daughters of Annasab and the three daughters of Anandappa being parties to said document?” 19. Learned counsel Shri Shrikant T.Patil, appearing for the appellant in RSA No.5544/2013, submitted: (a) That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit by accepting the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 had validly executed the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991, without considering the fact that the suit schedule properties : 21 : are ancestral joint family properties. Defendant No.1, being the widow of Anandappa, the predeceased son of the propositus Annasab Chavan, could not have validly executed the relinquishment deed on behalf of her daughters, nor on behalf of Champabai and Akkatai, defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the other daughters of the propositus Annasab Chavan. (b) That in the case of ancestral joint family properties, if one member relinquishes his or her share in favour of other members, the remaining members of the family would be entitled only to that relinquished share. When admittedly, in the instant case, the partition that had not been taken place, even if the execution of relinquishment deed is accepted, only the share of the person executing relinquishment deed would merge with the rest of the joint family properties. The person in whose favour the relinquishment deed is executed would not thereby acquire any exclusive right over the entire property. (c) That, out of the three daughters of Anandappa, only two daughters are shown as witnesses to the said relinquishment deed, while the third daughter was admittedly a minor at the time. Even on that count, the relinquishment deed is not valid and binding. : 22 : (d) That by reading to the contents of the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991, Ex.P28, learned counsel points out that no payment was made at the time of relinquishment, and there is no evidence of consideration having been paid. Thus, he submits that the document is void for want of payment of consideration. (e) He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. VINODA VS. M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS1, the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CHELLA SUBBANNA AND ANOTHER VS. CHELLA BALASUBBAREDDY AND OTHERS2 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. VS. K.SEETHARAMAIAH S/O. LATE KRISHA BHATTA, SINCE DEAD BY L.R. AND OTHERS3. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 20. Learned counsel Shri S.M. Tonne, appearing for the cross-objector in RSA Cross Objection No.100001/2021, submits: 1 (2021) 20 SCC 180 2 AIR 1945 MAD 142 (FB) 3 RSA No.2586/2010, DD 02.11.2023 : 23 : (a) That trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not have relied upon the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 inasmuch as Anandappa, the husband of defendant No.1, had predeceased his father, Annasab Chavan, the propositus. As such Susheela, defendant No.1 alone could not have relinquished the share of her children, who are the coparceners in the joint family property. (b) That, since the suit properties are admittedly ancestral joint family properties and defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the sisters were not parties to the said relinquishment deed, the property remained undivided, and in the light of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Central Act), the daughters became coparceners, and the said amended provision became applicable to the pending proceedings. (c) That the relinquishment deed at Ex.P28 is not saved even under the proviso to Section 6(1) or under Section 6(5) of the Act. That the said proviso to Section 6(1) applies only in respect of disposition, or alienation, or testamentary disposition. (d) That the relinquishment by one successor, who is neither a coparcener nor the Kartha does not amount to alienation or disposition as contemplated under the : 24 : said proviso. He contends that the relinquishment of a coparcener’s share must be for the benefit of all the coparceners and that a unilateral act of relinquishment cannot be deemed as disposition, alienation, or partition that would be saved under the proviso. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 who were not parties to the relinquishment deed and whose names reflected in the record of rights are not bound by the said relinquishment deed. (e) That even if the relinquishment deed were to be accepted, the plaintiff ought to have sought for relief of partition. When admittedly, the names of Champabai and Akkatai, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were entered into the revenue records vide ME No.3925 as per Exs.P26 and D7 on 03.04.1991, the execution of the relinquishment deed on 20.08.1991, subsequent to the said entries, was made without the consent of the daughters. (f) That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in not appreciating these aspects of the matter and further erred in granting the relief of injunction against defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. (g) That he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GOLI ESWARIAH VS. COMMISSIONER : 25 : OF GIFT TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH4 to explain the meaning of the term “dispossession”. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the appeal. 21. Learned counsel Shri Rajashekhar Burji appearing for respondent/plaintiff, while justifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, submitted that: (a) Annasab Chavan, the propositus passed away on 06.01.1991. The agreement of sale marked at Ex.D23, allegedly executed by defendant No.1 – Susheela is dated 24.07.1990, i.e., during the lifetime of the propositus. He submits that such an agreement could not have been validly executed during the lifetime of propositus. As such, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in concluding that the agreement dated 24.07.1990 was false, fabricated and brought up for the purpose the case. (b) Referring to Ex.D1, the agreement dated 22.08.1994, learned counsel submits that the said agreement was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 only to the extent of their shares. Even the said agreement makes no mention of the earlier agreement dated 24.07.1990. 4 1970 (2) SCC 390 : 26 : (c) Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had filed a suit in O.S. No.218/1991 on 01.10.1991 against the plaintiff, Vasant Annasab Chavan seeking partition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Even in the said suit, there was no mention of the agreement for sale dated 24.07.1990. (d) Similarly, defendant No.1 and her daughters had filed a suit in O.S. No.56/1994 seeking their 5/12th share in the suit properties. That suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution, and in the said suit no reference was made with regard to the alleged execution of the agreement of sale dated 24.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.4. Thus, he submits that the defendants could not have executed the said agreement, and the claim made by defendant No.4 in respect of 3/4th share of the suit property is invalid and unsustainable. (e) With regard to the execution of relinquishment deed, learned counsel submits that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have come to a just conclusion of upholding the relinquishment deed, as the same was executed by defendant No.1, and was witnessed by her two daughters, defendant Nos.2 and 3. Though, the third daughter who was a minor at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed, she has not challenged the same, even after attaining the age : 27 : of majority. Therefore, the relinquishment deed is valid, binding, and the same cannot be found fault with. (f) Since Annasab passed away on 06.01.1991, the daughters were not entitled to any share as on the date of his death. The relinquishment deed, having been executed on 20.08.1991, nothing remained for the daughters to claim any share thereof. Accordingly, he submits that the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the entire extent of land and prays for dismissal of the appeals and the cross-objection. 22. Heard. Perused the records. 23. Though the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan disputed that defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely Champabai and Akkatai, are the daughters of propositus Annasab, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, while answering issue No.3 have held them to be the daughters of Propositus -Annasab and sisters of the plaintiff. Further, while answering issue No.6, both Courts held that defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the sisters of the plaintiff, are entitled to a share in the suit property. : 28 : 24. Thus, the relationship between the parties namely, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the son and daughters of the original propositus, Annasab, and defendant No.1 being the widow of Anandappa, the predeceased son of Annasab is not in dispute. The suit schedule properties being the joint family ancestral properties, is also not in dispute. 25. Before adverting to the merits or otherwise of the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note that since the suit schedule properties admittedly are the joint family ancestral properties of the propositus – Annasab, the succession to the suit properties opened upon his demise on 06.01.1991. His first son Anandappa had predeceased him. Thus, as on 06.01.1991, the only surviving members of the family of Annasab are, his second son, Vasant Annasab Chavan, the plaintiff, Smt. Susheela, widow of Anandappa, (predeceased son of Annasab) her daughters namely Sunita, Bhimabai, Mahadevi and Champabai and Akkatai both being daughters of the propositus – Annasab. : 29 : 26. The genealogy of Annasab is as under: Annasab (died -1991) Anasuya Anandappa Vasant Champabai Akkatai (Anandappa) (Plf-in OS 5/94) (D2 in OS 5/94) (D3 in OS 5/94) (D1 in OS-200/94) Susheela (D1 in OS.5/94) R4A to R4C (Plf No.1 in OS-200/94) Sunita Bheemabai Mahadevi (Plfs-2, 3, and 4 in OS.200/94) 27. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff accepting the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 as per Ex.P28 and have further held that neither Susheela and her daughters nor the daughters of the original propositus had any right either to enter into agreement or to execute the deed of sale in favour of defendant No.4 – Bhima (the appellant in RSA No.5544/2013) more than what they were entitled to in accordance with law that prevailed as in the year 1991. In other words, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concluded that in a notional partition upon the demise : 30 : of the propositus- Annasab in the year 1991, the propositus- Annasab was entitled to 1/3rd share while his two sons Anandappa and Vasant Annasab Chavan were entitled for remaining 1/3rd each. Out of the 1/3rd share of the propositus, Anandappa and his legal heirs, Vasant Annasab Chavan and the daughters were further entitled for 1/12th share each. As such the Courts held that the execution of the relinquishment deed was valid only to the extent of their share in the suit properties. 28. Refuting the above finding and conclusion, the vehement submissions that were made by learned counsel for the appellants and cross-objectors, that upon the demise of the original propositus-Annasab in the year 1991, the names of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were already mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties vide ME No.3925, dated 03.04.1991, as seen in Ex.P26, also marked as Ex.D7, thereby all of them became the members of the Undivided : 31 : Joint Hindu Family and each being entitled for equal share thereunder. 29. That apart, adverting to the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 executed by Susheela in favour of the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants and the cross-objectors referring to the judgment in the case of CHELLA SUBBANNA AND ANOTHER (Supra) and M.R. VINODA (supra) vehemently contended that even if such a relinquishment deed was executed the same would enure to the benefit of the remaining members of the coparcenary family and the plaintiff alone cannot claim any share, right, title and interest over the same. 30. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of CHELLA SUBBANNA AND ANOTHER (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the parties, is as under: “a member of a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law cannot give his interest in the family estate exclusively to one of the several coparceners if the family remains joint in estate. In such circumstances, a : 32 : member may relinquish his interest, but such relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members of the joint family.” 31. Similarly the Apex Court, in the case of M.R. VINODA (supra) while dealing with a situation involving the Kartha of a Joint Hindu Family disposing of the joint family property that included the undivided interest of a minor member of the family, at paragraph No.24 has observed as under: 24. Mulla's Hindu Law, 22nd Edn. vide Article 262, states that a coparcener may renounce his interest in favour of the other coparceners as a body, but not in favour of one or more of them. When he renounces in favour of one or more of them, the renunciation enures for the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the coparcener or coparceners in whose favour the renunciation is made. A similar exposition vide Article 407 in Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, 17th Edn., states that a gift by a coparcener of his entire undivided interest in favour of the other coparcener or coparceners is valid whether it is regarded as one made with the consent of the other or others or as a renunciation of his interest in favour of all. Referring to the judgment in Thamma Venkata Subbamma, Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage observes that renunciation in the form of ostensible gift may have the effect of relinquishment and if it enures for the benefit of all the coparceners, such gift would be construed as valid. In addition, Mulla's Hindu Law, 22nd Edn. recognises that a father or other managing member of the ancestral immovable property can make gifts within reasonable limits for “pious purposes”. 32. Thus, based on the aforesaid proposition of law, the counsel for the appellant and the cross-objectors : 33 : submitted that even if the relinquishment deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff is accepted, it can only be said to enure to the benefit of all other members of the joint family and would not create any exclusive rights in favour of the plaintiff. 33. The aforesaid proposition by the counsel for the appellants cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, as already noted above, the succession to the suit schedule properties opened up in the year 1991 and as on the said date, the daughters of the propositus did not have share in the coparcenary property. The Apex Court in the case of M.ARUMUGAM VS. ANNAMALAI AND OTHERS5, while dealing with somewhat similar fact situation of the matter involving disposition of share of joint family property at paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 has held as under: “12. When we read Section 6 of the Succession Act the opening portion indicates that on the death of a male Hindu, his interest in the coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the 5 (2020) 11 SCC 103 : 34 : coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. That would mean that only the brothers would get the property. However, the proviso makes it clear that if the deceased leaves behind a female heir specified in Class I of the Schedule, the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property shall devolve either by testamentary or by intestate succession under the Succession Act and not by survivorship. The opening portion of Section 6, as it stood at the relevant time, clearly indicates that if male descendants were the only survivors then they would automatically have the rights or interest in the coparcenary property. Females had no right in the coparcenary property at that time. It was to protect the rights of the women that the proviso clearly stated that if there is a Class I female heir, the interest of the deceased would devolve as per the provisions of the Act and not by survivorship. The first Explanation to Section 6 makes it absolutely clear that the interest of the Hindu coparcener shall be deemed to be his share in the property which would have been allotted to him if partition had taken place immediately before his death. In the present case, if partition had taken place immediately before the death of Moola Gounder then he and Defendants 1 and 2 would have been entitled to one- third share each in the property. Nothing would have gone to the female heirs as per the law as it stood at that time. However, since partition had not actually taken place, and there were Class I female heirs, one-third share of Moola Gounder was to devolve on the Class I legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Succession Act. 13. In Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum [Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, (1978) 3 SCC 383] , the main issue was as to what share a Hindu widow would get in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession Act. This Court held that the partition which was a deemed partition cannot be limited to the time immediately prior to the death of the deceased coparcenary but “all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the share of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had : 35 : separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased”. The Court further held that the partition has to be treated and accepted as a concrete reality, something that cannot be recalled at a later stage. 14. In CWT v. Chander Sen [CWT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 641] , the dispute related to a joint family business between a father and son. This business was divided and thereafter, carried by a partnership firm of which both were partners. The father died leaving behind his son, two grandsons and a credit balance in the account of the firm. The issue that arose was whether the credit balance in the account left behind by the deceased was to be treated as joint family property or the property was to be distributed to Class I legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Succession Act. This Court held that the Succession Act supersedes all Mitakshara law. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 577, para 22) “22. … It would be difficult to hold today the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his hand vis-à-vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis-à-vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated. It may be mentioned that heirs in Class I of the Schedule under Section 8 of the Act included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son, etc.” Accordingly, it was directed that the credit balance would be inherited in terms of Section 8 of the Succession Act. 15. In Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla [Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla, (2002) 10 SCC 342] the issue which arose was whether the property inherited in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the : 36 : Succession Act was to be treated as the property of co- owners or as joint family property. The Court held as follows: (SCC p. 344, para 3) “3. … This Court has held in CWT v. Chander Sen [CWT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 641] that a property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, is the individual property of the person who inherits the same and not that of the HUF. In fact, in the special leave petition, it is admitted that Respondents 2 to 5 inherited the property in question from the said T.M. Doraiswami. Hence, they held it as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.” 17. There is another reason to take this view. Section 30 of the Succession Act clearly lays down that any Hindu can dispose of his share of the property by will or by any other testamentary disposition which is capable of being so disposed of by him. The Explanation to Section 30 clearly provides that the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him within the meaning of Section 30. This means that the lawmakers intended that for all intents and purposes the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary was to be virtually like his self- acquired property. Furthermore, when we conjointly read Section 30 with Section 19, which provides that when two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property per capita and as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. This also clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants-in-common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement. 19. A Karta is the manager of the joint family property. He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family. What Section 6 of the Act provides is that the natural guardian of a minor Hindu shall be his guardian : 37 : for all intents and purposes except so far as the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is concerned. This would mean that the natural guardian cannot dispose of the share of the minor in the joint family property. The reason is that the Karta of the joint family property is the manager of the property. However, this principle would not apply when a family settlement is taking place between the members of the joint family. When such dissolution takes place and some of the members relinquish their share in favour of the Karta, it is obvious that the Karta cannot act as the guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in favour of the Karta. There would be a conflict of interest. In such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be said to be a void document. At best, it was a voidable document in terms of Section 8 of the Act and should have been challenged within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority.” 34. Thus in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Apex Court in the case of M.ARUMUGAM (supra) which in fact referred to and relied upon by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of M.R. VINODA (supra) at paragraph 19, the submissions of the counsel for the appellants with regard to the effect of relinquishment deed as noted above, relying upon the judgment in the case of CHELLA SUBBANNA AND ANOTHER (supra), cannot be accepted. : 38 : 35. Admittedly, as in the year 1991, the daughters of a coparcener were not entitled for share in the coparcenary property. However, they are entitled for share of the coparceners in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Relevant at this juncture to refer Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as it existed before its amendment, which is as under: Section 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property "When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation 1. — For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation 2. — Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein." : 39 : 36. Though, counsel for the daughters of Annasab/defendants 2 and 3 sought to contend that in terms of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, the minor daughter of Anandappa was entitled for share in the coparcenary property, despite the daughters of the propositus having been married, it is necessary to note, even the Karnataka amendment became effective on and after 30.07.1994 and the relinquishment deed was executed on 20.08.1991 as per Ex.P28 which is much prior to coming into force of both State and Central Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. 37. The further contention of relinquishment deed at Ex.P28 not being saved even under the proviso to Section 6(1) or under Section 6(5) of the Act, as the relinquishment did not amount to disposition, or alienation or testamentary disposition also cannot be accepted inasmuch as, such alienation is recognized as noted in the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.ARUMUGAM (supra). : 40 : 38. Though, in the written statement filed to the plaint in O.S. No.5/1994, Susheela, defendant No.1 has denied the execution of the said relinquishment deed and receiving any amount from the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan, however, in the plaint in O.S No.200/1994, the said Susheela and the three daughters, who are the plaintiffs therein have contended that they were not even aware of the existence of relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 until they received summons in O.S. No.5/1994 and they remembered an incident where plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan (who is defendant No.1 in O.S. No.200/1994), during the year 1991 had called said Susheela to Raibag on the pretext of allotting her legitimate share in the joint family properties and acting upon the assurance so made she had signed some papers before the Sub-Registrar thinking that share would be allotted to her without knowing the contents of the same. Thus it was contended that the said relinquishment deed was obtained by fraud. : 41 : 39. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court having extensively adverted to the aforesaid stand taken by Smt. Susheela and based on the evidence of PW1 to PW4 regarding execution and registration of the relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 as per Ex.P28 including payment and receipt of Rs.25,000/- shown therein have concurrently found and held that the said relinquishment deed was indeed executed by Susheela along with her two daughters namely Sunita and Bhimabai as witnesses thereof. 40. No grounds of any nature whatsoever have been made out by the appellants regarding any error or perversity being committed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence while upholding the execution and registration of the said relinquishment deed. 41. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also found that though the said relinquishment deed had been executed by Susheela and her two daughters namely Sunita and Bhimabai being witnesses, Mahadevi who was : 42 : the minor was not the party to the said relinquishment deed at Ex.P28. However, the Courts have also found that there has been no challenge by the said Mahadevi to the said document even after she attaining the age of majority. The Courts have also taken note of the fact that though the said Mahadevi is arrayed as plaintiff No.4 in O.S. No.200/1994, there is no any pleading in the plaint regarding any illegality being committed while conveying her share, right, title and interest in terms of the said relinquishment deed at Ex.P28. The Courts have also found that though she was represented by her mother as next friend, no discharge was sought after she attaining the age of majority and no separate and independent stand contrary to the case of the plaintiffs was pleaded by Mahadevi. In other words, the Courts have found that there is no challenge by said Mahadevi to the validity or otherwise the relinquishment deed even after she attaining the age of majority. This Court on perusal of the pleadings and evidence and the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court do not find any reason to differ from : 43 : the said conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Thus, as rightly held by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan in O.S. No.5/1994 has proved the execution of relinquishment deed by Susheela in his favour for consideration of Rs.25,000/- on 20.08.1991 as per Ex.P28. 42. Necessary also to note that under the said relinquishment deed, Susheela along with her two daughters being Sunita and Bhimabai as witnesses has conveyed following shares in the suit properties: 1. j.¸À.£ÀA. ». £ÀA. PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä EzÀÄÝ 456 11 0=01 0=20 EzÀgÀ°è ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ 1/8 »¸ÁìzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ. 2. j.¸À.£ÀA. ». £ÀA. PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä EzÀÄÝ 456 16 0=26 3=36 457 10 0=10 0=80 EzÀÄÝ EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ 1/2 »¸ÁìzÀ ¥ÉÊQ 1/2 DuÉ 1/4 »¸ÁìzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ. 3. j.¸À.£ÀA. ». £ÀA. PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä EzÀÄÝ 772 1 5=00 6=32 0=07 ---- 4=33 EzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀzÀ°èAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ 1/2 »¸ÁìzÀ aÃgÁ¹Û d«ÄãÀÄ. 4. j.¸À.£ÀA.456/16 EzÀgÀ°è ¨Á«¬ÄzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°èAzÀ £À£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ §gÀvÀPÀÌ »¸Áì¢AzÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ vÀUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸À»vÀ : 44 : 43. Thus, after conveying the undivided shares in the suit properties as noted above, Susheela had retained certain shares with herself. Necessary also to note that the daughters of the propositus namely Champabai and Akkatai, defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S. No.5/1994 were not parties to the said relinquishment deed. 44. The said Champabai and Akkatai had also filed separate suit in O.S. No.218//1991 claiming partition and separate possession which was dismissed for non- prosecution. The said daughters of the propositus have claimed 1/9th share each in R.S. No.772/1B; 1/18th share each in R.S. No.456/16 and 457/10; 1/36th share each in R.S. No.456/11; and 1/9th share each in suit house property. 45. As already noted, as on the date when the succession opened the daughters did not have share in the coparcenary property, therefore, all that the daughters were entitled was to the share from and out of the 1/3rd share of the propositus – Annasab, their father. Though it is : 45 : contended that the names of the daughters were mutated in the revenue records soon after the demise of the propositus in the year 1991 and the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan had knowledge of the same, the said entry in the revenue records may have to be read only to that extent of their limited shares and not to be construed that they are having equal shares in the suit properties. 46. Thus, as on the date when the succession opened up, in notional partition the suit properties were liable to be partitioned between the propositus – Annasab, and his two sons namely Anandappa and Vasant Annasab Chavan, each being entitled for 1/3rd share. Wife and children of Anandappa would be entitled for his 1/3rd share. Further from and out of the 1/3rd share of the propositus – Annasab, all his aforesaid legal heirs would be entitled for equal share, in that, his son Vasant Annasab Chavan, the plaintiff would be entitled for 1/12th share, wife and children of Anandappa, the predeceased son of the propositus - Annasab together would be entitled for 1/12th share, and : 46 : Champabai and Akkatai being the daughters of the propositus – Annasab would be entitled for 1/12th share. Thus, Vasant Annasab Chavan would be entitled for 5/12th share, Susheela along with her three daughters being heirs of Anandappa would be entitled for 5/12th share, and Champabai and Akkatai being daughters would be entitled to 1/12th share each. 47. The trial Court while decreeing the suit in O.S. No.5/1994 has declared that the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan therein to be the owner of the suit land to the extent of: (i) 3/4th share in R.S. No.772/1B, (ii) 2/3rd share in R.S. No.456/16, (iii) 2/3rd share in R.S. No.457/10, (iv) 13/24th share in RS No.456/11, (v) and right to use Well water situate in R.S. No.456/14 as per succession and right in terms of relinquishment deed. 48. The aforesaid calculation of the share and entitlement of the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan which : 47 : was made taking into consideration of his own rights and the rights acquired through relinquishment deed appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have apparently included the shares of the daughters Champabai and Akkatai as well, which ought to have been excluded. Calculated thus, the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan would be entitled to: (a) 5/8th (5/12 being self + 5/24 under relinquishment deed) share in R.S. No.772/1B, (b) 25/48th (5/12 being self + 5/48 under relinquishment deed) share in R.S. No.456/16, (c) 25/48th (5/12 being self + 5/48 under relinquishment deed) share in R.S. No.457/10, (d) 15/32nd (5/12 being self + 5/96 under relinquishment deed) share in R.S. No.456/11. 49. Since Susheela and her daughters namely Sunita, Bhimabai and Mahadevi had retained certain portions of the suit properties with themselves, even while executing the relinquishment deed, such retained portions of the suit properties as under: : 48 : (a) 5/24th share in R.S. No.772/1B (b) 5/48th share in R.S. No.456/16, (c) 5/48th share in R.S. No.457/10, (d) 5/96th share in RS No.456/11, 50. The daughters Smt. Champabai and Akkatai now represented by respondent No.4(a) to 4(c) would be entitled 1/12th share each in all the suit properties. 51. Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.5544/2013 has filed a memo of calculation of the shares which are in conformity with the above calculation. Learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff has also confirmed with the calculation of shares above. The said memo and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties are placed on record. 52. In the light of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court declaring the entitlement of the plaintiff – Vasant Annasab Chavan requires to be modified as above. Accordingly, the following: : 49 : ORDER (i) The appeals in RSA No.5544/2013, the cross-objection in RSA Cross Objection No.100001/2021 and RSA No.100016/2021 are partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 26.03.2005 passed in O.S. No.5/1994 and O.S. No.200/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Raibag, which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2013, passed in R.A. Nos.216/2008 and 220/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag is modified as per the contents of the above paragraph Nos.46 to 49. (iii) The remaining portion of the judgment and decree of the trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is confirmed and the same shall be read in the light of the modification made by this Court in this judgment. (iv) The Registry to draw decree accordingly. Sd/- ( M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1