JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff''s suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, as well as for, rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, qua, the suit khasra number(s) , was, hence dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, to declare the relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.2 of his share in favour of defendant No.1, out of the suit land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.373/412, Khasra No.823, 838, land measuring 10-17-9 bighas situated in Muhal Kalohad/27, Tehsil Sunder Nagar and Khewat No.52, Khatauni No.65, Khasra No.301, 303, 307, 308, 324, 325, 326, 331, 333, measuring 32-0-4 bighas, situated in Moza Jola/353, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. as per the jamabandi for the year 1997-98. The plaintiff aver that previously the land was owned by their father Sh. Mahant Ram, who was having six sons and one has expired. All the legal representatives have inherited the land of Sh. Mahant Ram. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.2, illegally and against the law executed relinquishment deed of his share in favour of defendant No.1. The defendants were requested to cancel the relinquishment deed, but all in vain. 3. The defendants contested the suit, however, they had failed to within the stipulated period, file written statement to the plaint, hence their defence was struck off. 4. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 17.06.2015, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 17.06.2015, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether one of the legal heirs can relinquish his share in the property inherited from his father in favour of one of his legal heirs excluding the other under the Hindu Law? 2. Whether there has been mis-reading and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence especially Ext. P-1 to P-4 and PY to PZ and on that count, the judgment and decree under challenge is vitiated, hence not legally sustainable? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 6. Uncontrovertedly, as, borne in the jamabandis apposite to the suit land, AND, as comprised in Ex.PY, and, in Ex. PZ, the suit land is undivided inter se the coowners. From amongst, the recorded co-owners, Guman Singh, defendant No.2 through relinquishment deeds, respectively, borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex.P-2, alienated/released, his share, in the joint Hindu ancestral coparcenary property vis-a-vis Milkhi Ram, co-defendant No.1. The valid execution of the aforesaid relinquishshment deeds, is not, under challenge nor any challenge, is, cast vis-a-vis their execution, hence, emanating from, any vice of fraud or mis-representation, practised, by defendant No.1 Milkhi Ram vis-a-vis codefendant No.2 one Guman Singh. Importantly also the relinquishments made by co-defendant Guman Singh, upon, co-defendant Milkhi Ram, are, also not contended to be beyond, his share in the ancestral coparcenary property. 7. However, the learned senior counsel appearing, for the plaintiff/appellant, while placing reliance, upon, a judgment, rendered by the Hon''ble Madras High Court, in case titled as P.R. Munuswamy Naidu vs. V. Venkatesan and Ors , (1997) 2 M.L.J 18 , the relevant paragraphs No.12 to 14 whereof are extracted hereinafter:- "12. In N.R. Raghavachariar''s Hindu Law - Principles and Precedents'' - 8th Edition, (1987) , at page 237, it is said thus: A coparcener can renounce his interest in the joint family estate. The renunciation does not result in a general partition of the family. In N.R. Raghavachariar''s Hindu Law - Principles and Precedents'' - 8th Edition, (1987) , at page 237, it is said thus: A coparcener can renounce his interest in the joint family estate. The renunciation does not result in a general partition of the family. Such a renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in that estate, but does not affect the status of the remaining members quoad the family property, and they continue to be coparceners as before, the only effect of the renunciation being to reduce the number of persons to whom shares would be allotted if, and when, a division of the estate takes place. A coparcener can renounce his interest only in favour of all the coparceners and when he renounces in favour of only one of them, the renunciation, enures for the benefit of even the others, ...his renunciation which enures for the benefit of all the other coparceners may take the form of a gift of the entire interest of a coparcener in favour of another coparcener. 3. In Mulla ''s ''Hindu Law'' - 15th Edition (1982) at page 357, it is said thus: Renunciation or relinquishment of his share - A coparcener may renounce his interest in the coparcenary property in favour of the other coparceners as a body but not in favour of one or more of them. If he renounces in favour of one or more of them the renunciation enures for the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the coparcener or coparceners in whose favour the renunciation is made. Such renunciation is not invalid even if the renouncing coparcener makes it a condition that he would be paid something towards maintenance. The renunciation or relinquishment must, of course, be genuine. If fictitious and not acted upon it would be inoperative as between the parties and partition can be claimed.... 14. In a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Chella Subbanna v. Chella Balasubbareddi , (1945) AIR(Madras) 142 , it was held as follows:. The relinquishment by one coparcener of his interest in the family estate in favour of the members of the coparcenary does not amount to an alienation; it merely amounts to an extinction of his interest in favour of the others. The gift of his interest to one of several other coparceners would not mean the extinction of that interest. The relinquishment by one coparcener of his interest in the family estate in favour of the members of the coparcenary does not amount to an alienation; it merely amounts to an extinction of his interest in favour of the others. The gift of his interest to one of several other coparceners would not mean the extinction of that interest. It would mean an alienation of it. It is well-settled law that there cannot be such a gift to a stranger and it is now clear that there cannot be a gift to a fellow coparcener if the family is to remain undivided. There is another Privy Council judgment which supports the proposition that there cannot be a renunciation by one member of a joint family in favour of one of several other members of the family while the family remains joint. In Vasantrao v. Anandrao, 6 B.L.R. 925, one Madhawaro executed a release of his interest in the family property in favour of his father. The Bombay High Court held that the release must be treated, as being, not for the benefit of the father alone, but of the coparcenary and the shares were to be determined as though Madhawrao had died. This case went to the Privy Council as Anandrao v. Vasantrao , (1907) 9 BLR 595, their Lordships held that the governing principles had been rightly applied by the High Court and dismissed the appeal. At p. 497, 10th Edn. of Mayne the learned editor expresses the opinion that dicta in Pedayya v. Ramalingam, 11 ILR(Madras) 406 and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai , (1914) 27 M.L.J 272 , cannot be considered good law especially after the decision of the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju, 1936 71 M.L.J 558 . It follows from what we have said that we are in full agreement with this opinion and that additional support for it is to be found in the judgment of their Lordships in Anandrao v. Vasantrao , (1907) 9 BLR 595. The answer which we give to the question referred is this : A member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law cannot give his interest in the family estate to one of several coparceners if they remain joint in estate. In such circumstances he can relinquish his interest but the relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members. In such circumstances he can relinquish his interest but the relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members. The costs of this reference will be costs in the appeal." (I) AND conspicuously, on anvil, of, underlined apt portions thereto, hence, rears espousals qua the apposite relinquishment deeds, respectively borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex. P-2, even if, they were made, by co-defendant Guman Singh, singularly vis-a-vis co-defendant Milkhi Ram, (ii) nonetheless, in compatibility, with, the apt hereinabove extracted underlined portions, of, the verdict, rendered by the Hon''ble Madras High Court, wherein it is contemplated (a) of the apposite release rather enuring, for, the benefit of the entire body of coparceners; (b) AND, with an interdiction, hence, being cast therein, against the making of any release, by one coparcener in favour of one or more of them; (c) besides upon any renunciation or release being made by a coparcener vis-a-vis one or more members of the coparcenary body, thereupon, the renunciation rather enuring, hence, for the benefit of the entire body of the coparceners, and, not for the apposite benefit of one coparcener, vis-a-vis whom, the apt release is made; (d) rather all benefits thereof hence enuring, for the benefits, of, the entire body, of, coparceners. However, the submission, as addressed, before, this Court, by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (i) is sparked by gross misreading(s) , of, the import, AND, of the intrinsic nuance, of the apt verdict, as, is comprised, in the apt hereinabove extracted paragraphs; (ii) the misreading, of, import thereof, arises, from the factum of the learned senior counsel appearing, for the appellant/plaintiff, focusing merely upon the underlined portions thereof, (iii) hence, making contemplations, of, an interdiction being cast, against, the coparcener making a release or renunciation vis-a-vis one or more members, of the coparcenary body, (iv) and, he also proceeds to dwell, upon, and centralize, his arguments, upon, the further contemplation occurring therein, qua, upon the apt interdiction aforestated, being infringed, thereupon, the benefit of the apt renunciation, rather enuring vis-a-vis the other members of the coparcenary body, especially, vis-a-vis whom, the apt renunciation is not made; (v) hence concomitantly, he argues that the benefit, of, the relinquishment deeds, even if, made by co-defendant Guman Singh vis-a-vis only one co-owner, namely, Milkhi Ram, thereupon, all benefits thereof also enuring vis-a-vis all other members, of the coparcenary body, including the plaintiff. 8. 8. The misreading, by him, of the afore-referred contemplations, borne, in the apt hereinabove extracted paragraphs, hence, occurring in the verdict rendered by Madras High Court, in, P. R. Munuswamy Naidu''s case , (i) is, germinated, by, the mis-signification ascribed by him, to the parlance borne therein i.e. "enuring of benefits of apposite relinquishements qua the entire members, of, the coparcenary body", (ii) even when made by the relinquisher vis-a-vis one or two members, of, the coparcenary body, and, not made vis-avis other members, of coparcenary body, (iii) whereas, the mis-signification ascribed thereto by him, would fade into the domain of irrelevance or insignificance, (iv) given the apposite paragraphs, of, the judgment relied, upon, by him, rather, also, ascribing, the signification vis-a-vis the phrase "enuring for the benefits of the entire body of coparceners", qua its hence carrying, the import, of, upon occurrence, of, the apposite relinquishments, (v) thereupon, the relinquisher''s share in the undivided property, to the extent, he makes, the apt, relinquishment vis-a-vis one or more members of the entire body, of, the coparcenary body, hence, concomitantly being reduced, (vi) AND, if the apt, relinquishment is made by him, of, his entire share, in the coparcenary property, thereupon, his share in the ancestral coparcenary property being extinguished besides being rendered extinct, (vii) as also, of the determinations, of, the share of other members, of the coparcenary body vis-a-vis whom the relinquishments are not made, being hence enjoined to be made, in consonance, with, the apt extinctions, of, the share of the relinquisher, (viii) who makes, the relinquishment, of his share vis-a-vis one or more members of the coparcenary body, (ix) besides reiteratedly also, the determination(s) , of the shares of other members, of the coparcenary body, vis-a-vis whom, the apt relinquishment, is not made, being determined, as if, the relinquisher, is ousted, from the coparcenary body. The ascribing, by this Court, to the apt hereinabove extracted paragraphs, of, the verdict, of, Mardras High Court in P.R. Munuswamy Naidu''s case , qua hence, theirs rather carrying the aforesaid connotations besides significations, emerges, on a thorough, incisive, and, on an in depth analysis thereof. The ascribing, by this Court, to the apt hereinabove extracted paragraphs, of, the verdict, of, Mardras High Court in P.R. Munuswamy Naidu''s case , qua hence, theirs rather carrying the aforesaid connotations besides significations, emerges, on a thorough, incisive, and, on an in depth analysis thereof. (x) Significantly, also, the apt contemplations occurring therein, significantly, qua, the enurings, of, benefits of the apposite relinquishment deed vis-a-vis those members of the coparcenary body, who are not executants thereof nor, are, mentioned therein, as, beneficiaries thereof, being not amenable qua imputation, of, any, signification, nor, being construable, to be carrying any import, qua, dehors theirs not being executants thereto, theirs rather deriving, all, benefits thereof, in proportion to their shares, in the coparcenary property, (xi) given any meteing, of, aforesaid significations, vis-a-vis the phrase "enures for the benefit of the members of the entire coparcenary body" rather would thereupon, hence, extinguish, besides efface the very purpose, of, the further contemplations, hence, occurring therein, wherein, courts, of, law apparently rather validate the making of the release deeds, by one coparcener vis-a-vis the other coparcener, in the coparcenary body, (xii) and, also validate the apposite releases, being made, by, the apt relinquisher, of his share, in the coparcenary body vis-avis one or more members of the coparcenary body, and, to the exclusion, of, the other members, of the coparcenary body. 9. In aftermath, the relinquishment deeds, when, as aforestated are provenly hence validly and duly executed, and, are shorn of any vice of fictitiousness or mis-representation, (i) thereupon, the apposite relinquishment deeds, only result in (a) elimination, of, co-defendant No.2 Guman Singh, from, the coparcenary body, in case, he has relinquished, his entire share vis-avis co-defendant No.1 Milkhi Ram; (b) of hence, concomitantly, with, there occurring elimination of Guman Singh, co-defendant No.2, from, the coparcenary body, thereupon, hence, thereafter, the shares, of, other members of the coparcenary body, being amenable for re-determination, in consonance with the apt relinquishment deeds; (c) co-defendant Guman Singh being barred to make, any, demand for partition, of, his share in the coparcenary property, given his renouncing his share therein, (d) whereupon, upon demand for partition being made, by member/members of the coparcenary property, the separate allocations of earmarked shares, upon, hence dismemberments, of, the undivided property, rather occurring in consonance, with, the determination of shares, made, in compatibility with the apposite relinquishment deeds. 10. 10. Be that as it may, the relinquishment deeds, are also, made within the ambit of 8.36B of the H.P. Land Records Manual, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "8.36-B "Release" is an instrument whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. It predicates the existence of a claim upon another person or against any specified property, which claim the person, executing the document renounces by a deed of release. The person in whose favour there can be a release, must possess a pre-existing right or interest in the property. A release, in law, may be effected either for consideration or for no consideration. Where one co-owner of a property, be a deed, relinquishes his right to possession and his title in favour of the other co-owner, such deed is a release deed. Subject to the provisions contained under section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and section 3 of the H.P. Transfer of land (Regulation) Act, 1968, the mutation of release shall be attested by the Revenue Officer if a co-owner relinquishes his whole or any part of his claim (share( in favour of one or the other co-owner in a joint ownership either based upon registered deed or oral agreement entered by the patwari on the basis of report made to him under section 35 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. As mentioned under para 8.1(5) supra, the Revenue Officer cannot compel the parties to execute registered deed of Release and Settlement. Mutation can be attested on the basis of oral agreement under section 38 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, if otherwise legal." (i) wherein, also a clear stipulation is borne, whereby, a co-owner of undivided land, is, permitted to relinquish, his whole or any part of his share vis-a-vis one or the other co-owners, by his executing, an apposite registered deed of release. Since, the apposite relinquishment deeds, are made in consonance therewith, and, assumingly, if the argument, of, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, is, tentatively accepted, yet with a specific apt hereat mandate, occurring in H.P. Land Records Manual, (ii) thereupon, with a reading, of, the verdict rendered, by the Madras High Court in P.R. Munuswamy Naidu''s case , rather not making any clear unraveling, qua, in, compatibility vis-a-vis existence, within, the State of H.P., of, the hereinabove extracted mandate, within domain whereof, the relinquishment, of a share by a co-owner in the undivided land vis-a-vis one or the other co-sharers, is, rather permissible, also in Madras hence an alike mandate rather existing, thereupon the specific mandate extracted hereinabove also hence subsumes, the effect, if any, even if tentatively, of the aforesaid espousal, made by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant herein, (iii) more so when mandate thereof, is, not demonstrably disclosed to be hence declared ultra vires. 11. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents/defendants and against the appellant/plaintiff. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 13. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.