MURLI SINGH Vs. ROOMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 16.04.2005whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Sh. Murli Singh seeking declaration and injunction (to the effect that the suit land be declared as an ancestral property and Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from getting any sale deed executed in regard to the suit land; Plaintiff be not dispossessed; further the agreement to sell dated 13.01.1961 and the decree dated 02.02.1973 in suit No. 395/1961 as modified in RFA No. 52/1973 and RFA No. 80/1973 be also declared null and void) had been decreed. Impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit stood dismissed.

(2.) The Plaintiffs (13 in number) and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are members of joint Hindu family; their common Ancestor was Tulsi (a) Popi. He had two sons namely Roomal and Jodha (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 & 12 are the sons of Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 8 to 11 and Plaintiff No. 13 are the sons of Defendant No. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit land was an ancestral property; their father Tulsi had inherited it from their grandfather; Plaintiffs being governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law have interest in said joint family property. On 13.01.1961, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell qua the suit property with Defendant nos 3 to 5; Plaintiffs came to know about this agreement on 30.01.1985. On enquiry, it was revealed that Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had filed a suit for specific performance (suit No. 395/61) qua this agreement to sell dated 13.01.191; this suit was decreed in favour of Defendant No. 3 by the court of Sh. O.P. Diwedi on 02.02.73 whereby the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had been directed to executed the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.

(3.) The RFA No. 80/1973 was allowed by the High Court; vide judgment dated 14.01.1985, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were ordered to execute the sale deed qua Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 within one month. The case of the Plaintiff is that they were minors at the time when Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed the agreement to sell and this agreement being against their interest was not binding upon them. Suit was accordingly filed with the aforenoted prayers.