AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.) CM No. 7313 -C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. For the reason mentioned in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Raj Rani -appellant No. 2, the same is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, stands condoned. RSA No. 3080 of 2014
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, dated 16.03.2013, whereby, the suit for declaration cancelling the instrument of release deed dated 29.11.2005 being void and nonest in the eyes of law as the same is as a result of fraud, misrepresentation and misreading at the behest of the respondent -defendants, stands dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant -plaintiffs also stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on 16.11.2013.
(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the release deed dated 29.11.2005 was got executed by the respondent -defendants in their favour from the appellant -plaintiffs as also defendant No. 6, was not sustainable. He contends that since the property admittedly was a coparcenary property, the same would devolve upon the appellant -plaintiffs, which fact is also not disputed. His submission is that the release deed would not confer any right upon the respondents as the said documents would not be a valid one as it was required to be in the form of a relinquishment deed. That apart, he contends that the document conferred the title upon the respondents and the requisite stamp fee has also not been paid. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned judgments and reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sarathambal v. Seeralan and others, AIR 1981 (Madras) 59.;