IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. OF 2010 SSWSS APPELLANT DEFENDANT ,y. Snit. Ati Devi wife of Shri Gorakhnath Singh, aged about- 55 years, Caste- y»-'"^c»'i''^ . '' > W " n.^ "^l^ Rajput, R/o village- Khonga, Tahsil- ^Q _ _Manora and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT 2. Smt. Rati Devi wife of Shri Sudhir Singh, aged about- 40 years, Caste- Rajput, R/o village- Cheprakona, Tahsil- Bagicha Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT: DEFENDANT Second Appeal No.84 of 2010 Smt. Ati Devi Versus RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF Smt. Rati Devi and another Present: Shri M.K. Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rishi Mahobia, counsel for respondent No.1. Ms. Sangita Mishra, counsel for respondent No,2. JUDGNIENT (29-6-2011) Prashant KymarMishra_, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') chatlenging the judgment and decree passed concurrently by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has 1/3 share in the suit property and is entitled to get the suit land partitioned accordingly. 2. Undisputedly, the land belonged to one Lilu Singh. Sirpati and Lalchand were hiswidow and son respectively. After the death of son Lalchand and holder Lilu Singh, it was recorded in the name of Sirpati. . The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Jagmati are three daughters of Sirpati, widow of Lilu Singh. The present suit was filed by one of the daughters claiming 1/3 share in the suit property which has been decreed by the Courts below. 3. The appellant defended the suit on pleadings, inter alia, that her mother Sirpati Devi had executed a deed (Ex.-D/9 dated 25-6-1975) in her favour granting entire land to her and since thereafter she has been in possession of the suit land. The appellant also placed reliance on Ikrarnama (Ex.-P/4) executed by the plaintiff on 12-9-2003 ^ relinquishing her right on the suit land. It was also stated that because -J '"':":^ c=w&, 1 Say* 3 I f-S ";;i^y of long, uninterrupted and peaceful possession since 1975, the appellant has perfected her title and, therefore, the suit must fail. 4. It is to be seen that Ex.-D/9 dated 25-6-1975 executed by mother Sirpati and Ex.-P/4 dated 12-9-2003 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the present appellant/defendant relinquishing her right are instruments dealing with immovable property of value more than Rs.100/-, however, the said instruments have not been registered though their registration is compulsory under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Thus Courts below have not committed any error in not giving effect to these documents to accept the defence raised by the appellant. 5. With regard to theappellant's argument that it is a case of adverse possession, it is to be seen that the properi:y was self acquired by Lilu Singh who had 3 daughters and one son. After his death, the revenue records should have carried the name of all the class-1 legal heirs. However, the name of Sirpati Devi alone was recorded. In any case, the plaintiff as Well as the defendanVappellant and their 3 sister Jagmati became co-owner along with their mother after the death of Lilu Singh. The possession of one co-owner against other co-owner does not become adverse and more so, when the litigation was going on in the revenue Court from July, 2003. Ex.-DM has also been executed in the year 2003. This document is deed of relinquishment though titled as Ikrarnama, therefore, at-least till 2003, the appellant recognized right, title and interest of the plaintiff, otherwise there would have been no occasion to get a deed of relinquishment executed from the plaintiff. 6.~ Considering the case from any angle, this Court is unable to agree with the.argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant thatjudgment and decree suffers from any illegality. 7. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this second I, which fails and is hereby dismissed. ,.....-...-...--...-.-..-.„,„.-.....„—. ^ ^^ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Barve