ARUNASHU AND OTHERS Vs. RAJESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that this appeal is to be heard only on the question of law as per the settled position.

(2.) This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the CPC is at the instance of the defendants No.2, 3 and 6 challenging the remand order of the first appellate court dated 19.7.2016.

(3.) The respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title and declaring the sale deeds dated 12.11.2007, 7.7.2006, 2.9.1987 and 21.8.2012 as null and void and also for permanent injunction with the plea that Chhotelal had two sons Raghunath and Khuman Singh, who had ancestral property at village Kapuria and that the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 Ganga (Respondent No.15 herein) were members of the joint property and that Raghunath had died issueless and his six Acres of land was received by Khuman Singh and his six sons. Accordingly each of the member had received two Acres. The defendant No.1 had received two acres of land showing the business need and had sold it to the different persons, hence no share was left with him. It was further pleaded by the respondents-plaintiffs that on 5.6.2008 on enquiry from Patwary, they had come to know that the defendant No.1 on 2.10.2001 had got the six acres land of Raghunath mutated in his name and had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No.2 to 4 on 12.11.2007, 7.7.2006, 2.9.1987 and 21.8.2012, hence the present suit was filed. The suit was opposed by the defendant No.1 Ganga by denying the plaint averment and raising the plea that partition had taken place between Raghunath and Khuman Singh during their lifetime and that the suit was barred by time.