Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2012. This is how, the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) IN short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a declaration that release deed/relinquishment deed No. 806/1, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, on 18.9.2001, was void, illegal and not binding on the rights of plaintiff and other co -parceners. Decree for injunction, restraining defendants from interfering in the peaceful joint possession of the plaintiff was also prayed for by way of consequential relief. It was averred that defendant No. 1 i.e. Sarte alias Surta, happened to be the father of plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Suit property was purported to be ancestral in the hands of Sarte alias Surta. It was also maintained that the said deed was never acted upon and, in any case, was not executed by free will and, in fact, was procured by fraud and undue influence. Thus, the suit.
(3.) DEFENDANTS , pleaded, inter alia, that defendant No. 1 was, indeed, the absolute owner in possession of the suit property prior to the execution of the release deed dated 18.9.2001. No other member of the joint Hindu family had any right, title or interest therein. It was maintained that defendant No. 1 had executed a valid relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Thus, plaintiff was neither a co -owner nor in possession of the suit property.;