property. However, even before the first plaintiff could raise loan, the first defendant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to her by pledging the jewels belonging to his wife with the understanding that the plaintiffs will not demand any share in the suit property. As the first defendant has given amount for meeting the hospitalisation expenses of the second plaintiff, the first plaintiff did not mortgage the title deeds to raise money. However, the first plaintiff did not return the title deeds to the first defendant. Furthermore, the first defendant also did not demand for return of the documents from the plaintiffs, taking note of the relationship between them. It is also contended that the first defendant has made two fixed deposits for Rs.10,000/- in the name of the plaintiffs and the amount thereof have been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Further, the first defendant made deposits in the Post Office Recurring Deposit fund and it was also withdrawn by the first plaintiff and second defendant. Further, the second defendant gave all her jewels, silverware and Rs.50,000/- received by her to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, at no point of time, demanded partition of the suit property because of the specific understanding that in lieu of their share, the first defendant had spent money for performance of their marriage, seemandham and delivery of the childen etc., and also maintained the entire family. The amount so received by the plaintiffs is equal to the share in the suit property. The first defendant was under the bonafide impression that the plaintiffs would not claim any share in the suit property and release their share at any time. It is further stated that only after receipt of the notice dated 09.06.2008 sent by the plaintiffs did the first defendant come to know about the release deed dated 28.12.2005 said to have been executed by the second defendant. Further, the second defendant did not receive Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiffs at the time of executing the release deed dated 28.12.2005 and therefore, the release deed dated 28.12.2005 will not bind the first defendant in any manner. If one of the co-sharers release his or her share in the property in favour of the other cosharers, such benefit must be given to all the co-sharers equally but that was not done in this case. The Plaintiffs are having independent house and other property from their in-laws. They have received money from the first defendant on several occasion to improve their property. The first defendant alone paid property tax, water tax and carried out periodic repair to the suit property and maintained it by spending amount. If the amount received by the plaintiffs from the first defendant at periodic interval is taken into account, it would be equal to the claim for share in the suit property made by the plaintiffs. In other words, the various amount spent by the first defendant for the plaintiffs and also given to the plaintiffs is more than or equal to 1/4 share in the suit property. The Plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit property and the question of possession by the first defendant cannot be assumed to be a
