RABARI HAMIRA HENGOL Vs. BAI MANI KASALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will govern the disposal of second appeals Nos. 666 and 667 of 1969 which arise out of civil appeals Nos. 32 of 1968 and 31 of 1968 respectively decided by the learned District Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur on June 16 1969 and June 25 1969 respectively.

(2.) Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and their deceased brother Koli Ishwar Kasala (respondent No. 3) had filed two suits being regular civil suits Nos. 32 of 1966 and 33 of 1966 in the court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Deesa to obtain a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the deceased Ishwar Kasala in favour of the de- fendants on 2. 4. 1962 were null and void and also to recover posse- ssion of the suit fields from the defendants. During the pendency of the suits Ishwar Kasala gave an application to the trial court to indicate that he wanted to withdraw the suits. The learned trial Judge ordered that Ishwar Kasala should be transposed as defendant No. 2 in each of those suits with the result that there remained only respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs in each of the aforesaid suits. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Kasala Shamji. Civil suit No. 33 of 1966 was filed against Rabari Savdas Java. As he died during the pendency of the suit his legal re- presentatives were brought on record and they are appellants in second appeal No. 667 of 1969. Civil suit No. 32 of 1967 was filed against Rabari Hamira Hengol who is the appellant in civil second appeal No. 666 of 1969.

(3.) The facts of both the suits are to a certain extent similar. Accor- ding to the plaintiffs their father died in the year 1956. After the death of their father their mother Bai Valma became the owner of the suit fields. Civil suit No. 32 of 1966 relates to the field bearing survey No. 245 whereas civil suit No. 33 of 1966 relates to the fields bearing survey Nos. 244 and 247. Al the above fields are situated within the limits of Rajpur Jagir of taluka Deesa in Banaskantha district. According to the plaint in each of the aforesaid suits which was amended after the plaintiff- Ishwar Kasala was transposed as defendant No. 2 Ishwar Kasala had not executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant on 2. 4. 1962. Ishwar Kasala was treated by the defendants as a slave and if there is any sale deed it was obtained from Ishwar Kasala by coercion and with- out paying him any consideration. The above sale deeds did not affect the interest of the plaintiffs mother Bai Valma in the suit properties. As neither of the plaintiffs nor Bai Valma was a party to the above sale deeds they were null and void.