(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Defendants 1 and 2 under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.33/2014 by the Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG), whereby the learned appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 25/4/2014 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2013, has decreed the Plaintiffs' claim. Parties of this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, partition and separate possession with regard to the plaint Schedule "A and B" properties by submitting, inter alia, that the property in question was the ancestral property, which was obtained by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Heera, from his father Raru by way of inheritance. It is pleaded further that since the property is the ancestral property, therefore, the registered deed of sale dtd. 31/5/2008 as executed by Defendant No.1 " Smt. Karuna Bai, widow of Raghunandan (son of said Heera), in favour of Defendant No.5-Tijram Kewat, was null and void and would not confer any right, title or interest upon him.
(3.) The aforesaid claim was contested by Defendants and the trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dtd. 25/4/2014, has dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim by observing, inter alia, that the property in question described in plaint Schedule "A and B" are the self-acquired property of Heera, predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs and, held further that since the property bearing Kh.No.153/31 admeasuring 0.809 hectares was obtained by Defendant No.1 " Smt. Karuna Bai, wife of Raghunandan, in partition, and therefore, the registered deed of sale as executed by her (Smt. Karuna Bai) on 31/5/2008 in favour of Defendant No.5 " Tijram Kewat cannot be held to be null and void.