(1.) The appellants/defendants have preferred this Misc. appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 165-A/2002 passed on 27/1/2003 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara has remanded the case as per direction given in its judgment while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara on 15/2/2000 in Civil Suit No. 88-A/1987. The learned 3rd Additional District Judge in its remand order has directed for impleading mother and 4th brother of plaintiffs as party to the suit and also directed for framing of issues 'whether Kartik Ram is necessary party and if plaintiff is impleaded 4th brother and mother as party to the case then learned trial court will permit them to file written statement."
(2.) The parties are described as per their description before the trial court.
(3.) The brief facts reflected from the record are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No. 88-A/1987 before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetara which has been subsequently transferred to Civil Judge, Class-I mainly contending that the plaintiffs are governed by Mitakshra Branch of Hindu law. The land situated at Village Kandai admeasuring 28.85 acre is ancestral property of plaintiffs and his father defendant No. 5 Awadhram. The details of the property have been described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The plaintiffs are sons of Awadhram and no partition has been taken place, as such they are having 1/4th share with their father from birth, thus, the plaintiffs have joint right to the extent of 3/4th share in the suit property. It has also been contended that Awadhram was Manager of the joint family, but because of some weakness he used to sold the property without any legal requirement of the family as described in the Schedule-A of the plaint which has been sold to defendant Chhabi Lal on 21/8/1978 and some property to defendant Pannalal on 9/4/1979, 20/1/1980 and 23/1/1981 through registered sale deeds, the details of sale have been described in the Schedule-B of the plaint. The property has been sold without legal necessity of joint Hindu family, as such the sale deed is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.