!! 1 !! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.135/2009 (Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurnaam Kour & Ors.) Date of order :: 20.05.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.R.S. Gill, for the appellant. The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Civil appeal No.3/2004 whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20th August, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Padampur in Civil Case No.82/1997 whereby the suit of the plaintiff- appellant was dismissed. According to the facts of the case, a suit was filed by appellant-plaintiff and Jagtar Singh for declaration and permanent injunction of !! 2 !! release deed executed by late Jagjeet Singh husband of respondent No.1. In the suit, it is specifically stated that husband of respondent No.1 late Jagjeet Singh executed a release deed on 06th July, 1972 and relinquished his share in favour of Niranjan Singh with the consideration of Rs.8,000/- and left the country and went to Canada and since then the said land was in possession of father of plaintiff and his brothers. Further, it is stated that later on Jagjeet Singh died, but due to old age his father could not proceed the release deed and the land was mutated in the name of late Jagjeet Singh husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2-4, so also, in the name of other share holders being successors. Therefore, it was prayed that on the basis of release deed executed by late Jagjeet Singh and respondents No.5-7 may be declared khatedar of the land, which is, relinquished by late Jagjeet Singh and respondents No.1-4 be restrained to interfere in the possession over the land in question. The learned trial Court after submitting written statement by the respondents, framed five issues and with the consent of parties subsequently changed the issues and framed new issues. Thereafter, in support of suit, the !! 3 !! plaintiff produced as many as five witnesses, so also, two documents were exhibited. Thereafter, two witnesses from defence side DW-1 Jag Mohan Singh and DW-2 Sarjeet Kour and defendant No.1 produced herself as DW-3. Thereafter, learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit filed by the appellant- plaintiff against the defendants vide judgment dated 20th August, 2004. Against the said judgment an appeal was preferred by the appellant-plaintiff that too was dismissed vide judgment dated 16th August, 2007. It is also required to be observed that name of plaintiff No.2 Jagtar Singh was subsequently deleted. Upon perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that trial Court has decided the suit issue-wise and while taking into consideration the entire facts and evidence which is on record. The learned trial Court while deciding issue No.1 observed that right can be relinquished in the event of share of both the parties in the property in question and if the property is joint property. But the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that land in question was in the name of Niranjan !! 4 !! Singh only and he was sole owner of the property in question and the day on which late Jagjeet Singh left the country, Niranjan Singh father of Jagjeet Sing was alive. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that finding of learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. More so, it is based on settled principle of law that right can be relinquished by either party who has joint share in the property. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 20th August, 2004 and its confirmation by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 16th August, 2007 by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Civil Appeal No.3/2004 does not require any interference because no substantial question of law emerges for consideration. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this second appeal. Hence, this second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-