SATPAL (SATYAPAL) SINGH Vs. VIDHA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment dtd. 23/3/2019 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2015 and Civil Appeal No.40/2015, whereby learned appellate Court after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has remanded the matter after framing four additional issues.

(2.) The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter-alia on the ground that they have purchased suit property from defendants no.1 to 3 and one Pratap Singh and Santosh vide registered sale-deed dtd. 27/6/2003 and had obtained the possession thereof. On the basis of aforesaid sale, their names were mutated in the revenue record. It is their case that defendants No.1 and 2 with malafide intention sold the suit property to defendant no.4 vide sale-deed dtd. 16/10/2009 and further the defendant no.4 sold the same to defendants no.6 to 8 vide sale-deed dtd. 4/1/2011 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought a declaration that sale-deed executed by defendants no.1 and 2 is null & void and that they are the owner in the possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale-deed dtd. 27/6/2003. The plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant no.1 and 2 filed a common written statement denying the plaint averments. It is their case that they are the joint owner of the suit property along with defendant no.3 and Santosh. It is their case that even though they were major on the date of execution of the sale-deed dtd. 27/6/2003, they were shown as minor in the sale-deed and the sale-deed was executed on their behalf by defendant no.3, who is their mother. They submit that since they had share in the suit property, the mother could not have sold their share without their consent. The defendant no.1 and 2 also filed a counter claim seeking a declaration that they are the co-owner of the suit property and that the sale-deed dtd. 27/6/2003 is null and void to the extent of their share in the property.