THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 903 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The second appeal is ﬁled by the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.1019 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. He ﬁled the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are his brothers and respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.1. He ﬁled the suit stating that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property comprising of Ac.0.69 cents of land, together with a thatched shed thereon, situated at Santhanuthalapadu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. According to him, he got separated from the family by executing a deed of relinquishment in the year 1966 and that his brothers also got separated. He further stated that despite the said partition, six vacant sites including the suit schedule property remained undivided and that in an oral partition which is said to have taken place in or about 1968 or 1969, the suit schedule property was allotted to him, and that the remaining items were allotted to the shares of their father and respondent Nos.1 and 3. He further pleaded that being the eldest son in the family, he looked after the studies of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and that he did not keep any house property for himself. He stated that he constructed a barren in the northern side of the existing thatched house, dug a well and is residing in the house. He pleaded that the taxes were being paid from time to time. He alleged that on account of escalation of value of the property, the respondents are trying to evict him. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 ﬁled separate written statements and they denied the version of the appellant. According to them, the appellant has taken the property that has fallen to his share and executed a deed of relinquishment. Thereafter, a partition is said to have been taken place, in which Ac.0.18 cents of land in Survey No.916 is fallen to the share of their father Kistamma and Ac.0.80 cents to the share of respondent No.3. The particulars of the sales that have been aﬀected by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2 and others were also furnished. It was mentioned that the appellant was permitted to reside in the premises along with their old parents for some time, when he was evicted from a rented house in the execution of a decree and taking advantage of the same, the appellant is attempting to squat on the premises unauthorisedly. They further stated that at one stage, a suit for eviction was ﬁled, but when the appellant vacated the premises, the said suit was withdrawn and that the appellant is not in possession of the said property. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 27.10.2006. The appellant ﬁled A.S.No.201 of 2006 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 17.02.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit ﬁled by the appellant was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. Therefore, the trial Court framed two issues, namely “Whether the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property and Whether he is entitled for the relief of injunction”. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and one Sri Konijeti Venkateswarlu was examined as P.W.2. The appellant ﬁled Exs.A1 to A18 compromising, mostly of demand notices of tax. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B1 to B24 were filed. Exs.X1 to X11 were also taken on record. The documentary evidence ﬁled on behalf of the respondents consisted of six sale deeds (Exs.B1 to B5 and B8), demand notices, and house tax receipts. On dismissal of the suit, the appeal was ﬁled and the lower appellate Court framed two points, which are identical with the issues framed by the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant approached the Court by asserting the absolute title on the basis of an oral partition. However, in the course of arguments, it is urged that a partition of 6 items is yet to take place. It is a matter of record that the appellant executed a deed of relinquishment marked as Ex.B1 and he virtually gave up all his rights vis-à-vis the remaining joint family properties, that existed by that time. His father and his two brothers continued to be joint. Nowhere in Ex.A1 it was mentioned that there existed any other properties. A person who got separated from the joint family cannot claim right, once again, unless there exists an arrangement to the contrary. From his point of view, the partition is complete and he ceases to be a coparcener, even while the remaining joint family continues to be a coparcenery. It is important to note that a deed of relinquishment was executed on 12.04.1966, whereas the appellant stated in his plaint that somewhere in 1968 or 1969, oral partition of certain items has taken place. Assuming that there existed an oral partition, the revenue records or Gram Panchayat records would have reﬂected the eﬀect of the partition, vis-à-vis the parties. Even by this time, let alone the date of ﬁling the suit, the appellant does not have any revenue or other record in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The purport of the proceedings pertaining to dispute between the parties discloses that the appellant has no regard for truth and that he is prepared to go to any extent to advance his selﬁsh causes. It is not in dispute that he was evicted from the rented premises in the year 1996 and thereafter, he started living with his old parents in the suit schedule property. However, his version in the plaint in the present suit is that he is in continuous possession of the suit schedule premises for the past 30 years. The bunch of sale deeds were executed among various parties in relation to the suit schedule property discloses that the appellant never had any right of ownership vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. As of now, the respondents hold title to the property. Even assuming that the appellant is in possession of the property, injunction cannot be granted against the true owners. At one stage of the arguments, it was pleaded that the appellant is an old man of about 80 years and since he has no other house or property, he may be permitted to live in the premises during his life time. This assertion, however, was disputed by the respondents. Out of sympathy for the appellant and regard for his age, this Court required him to ﬁle an aﬃdavit to the eﬀect that he does not own any property. He did not do so. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court, the information furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Ongole which discloses that in the past about one year, the appellant executed 14 sale deeds in respect of prime properties. When a photograph of the house owned by him is shown, he stated that it is the house of his son. It is also stated that as of now, he is ﬁguring as a party in about a dozen cases. This Court does not ﬁnd any substantial question of law in the second appeal and the concurrent ﬁndings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, do not warrant interference. The appellant subjected the respondents to frivolous and unnecessary litigation. He took undue advantage of the respect shown to him by his brothers and other family members in providing shelter, when he was evicted from rented premises. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 25.11.2011. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl