GAJANAND Vs. GORDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13-9-2002, passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna (Shri J.S. Varma) in Civil Suit No. 47A/2000 dismissing the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In this appeal appellants are referred as "plaintiffs" and the respondents as "defendants". The following admitted facts have come on record:--

(2.) The facts in brief of the plaint are that the plaintiffs Gajanand, Babulal and defendant No. 1 Gordhan were members of the joint Hindu family. After the death of Gyasiram (father) defendant No. 1 Gordhan used to look after agricultural operation of the family. Plaintiffs have further alleged that after the death of Gyasiram the disputed property was equally distributed among the three sons of Gyasiram i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Though the disputed property was in the name of defendant No. 1, yet the whole disputed property was managed by the plaintiffs. The disputed agricultural land was divided among the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 orally in presence of Panch before 25 years and subsequently a memo of partition was reduced to writing in the year 1970 between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have further alleged that they are in possession of their respective shares after the oral partition as well as acknowledgment of deed reduced to writing. Defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the disputed land to the respondent No. 2. The sale deed dated 15-1-1992 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not only illegal but also null and void. The disputed property is the joint Hindu family property which was given to the plaintiffs share in the partition. On the basis of the above allegations, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed on 9-5-1992. By way of amendment additional relief was sought to declare the sale deed dated 15-1-1992 executed in favour of the defendant No. 2 as null and void.

(3.) After the death of defendant No. 1 during pendency of the suit, his legal representatives filed written statement admitting the entire allegations of the plaint and requested to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint.