IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.712 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.712 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.712 OF 2004. Rambhau Karbhari Rote ...Appellant Versus. Laxman Karbhari Rote (Patil) & Ors. ...Respondents Shri Ramesh Patil for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th MARCH, 2008. : 18th MARCH, 2008. : 18th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard larned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession. The trial Court passed a decree for partition and separate possession. The decree has been confirmed in appeal. 2. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the original plaintiff (first respondent) on 27th February, 1963 sold his one half share in the ancestral properties by a registered Sale Deed and thereafter had executed a Deed of Relinquishment in favour of the appellant. The submission is that in view of the said Deed of Relinquishment and the sale of the property, the first respondent was not entitled to claim his share. 3. The Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. After considering the evidence of the son of the original plaintiff and other evidence on record, the Court have disbelieved the case : 2 : 2 : 2 : of prior partition. Reliance was placed on unregistered Deed of Relinquishment. In view of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 there could not have been any relinquishment by an unregistered document. Therefore, the Courts below have not accepted the case of relinquishment made out by the appellants. Once the case of relinquishment is not made out, it is obvious that the share of the original plaintiff continues to exist. The Appellate Court found that the original Sale Deed dated 27th February, 1963 was not produced. 4. A submission was made by the advocate for appellants that the suit was barred by limitation as the same is not filed within a period of three years from the date on which notice was issued by the original plaintiff demanding partition. Essentially, the suit is for partition and separate possession. Therefore, unless the ouster of the original plaintiff is established question of bar of limitation will not arise. 5. In view of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The will be no orders as to costs. 6. Civil Application No.1455 of 2005 does not survive and the same is rejected. : 3 : 3 : 3 : Judge. Judge. Judge.