JEEVAN KUMAR & OTHERS Vs. VISHNU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is at the instance of defendants No. 8 to 10 in the suit challenging the judgment of trial court dated 15/9/1999 partly decreeing the suit of respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) for declaring the sale deed dated 2/8/1995 executed in favour of appellants as null and void and also claiming the relief of injunction and questioning the sale deed in favour of defendants No. 5 to 7 to the extent of 0.319 hectare of land which according to the plaintiff was received less in partition. The alternate relief was in respect of partition and possession.

(2.) The respondents No. 2 and 3 namely Kamlabai (plaintiff No. 2) and Ambaram(defendant No. 1) are husband and wife and respondent No. 1 Vishnu (plaintiff No. 1) and respondent No. 4 Dinesh (defendant No. 2) are sons of Ambaram.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed the suit with the plea that 7.871 hectare land of village Sanvarsi Tehsil Tonkkhurd was the ancestral property in the hands of respondent No. 3 in which respondents No. 1 and 4 had birth right and on account of family dispute in the year 1993 the property was partitioned in two parts one was received by respondent No. 1 and other was received by respondent No. 4 and it was agreed that respondent No. 2 will live with respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 will live with respondent No. 4 and respective possession of share was given to them in pursuance to which respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 were in possession and had put a maidh between the agricultural lands falling in their share. The description of land received by respondent No. 1 and by respondent No. 4 was given in the plaint and according to the plaint averment the respondent No. 1 had received 3.616 hectare and respondent No. 4 had received 4.255 hectare. It was further pleaded by respondents No. 1 and 2 that even after the partition the name of respondent No. 3 continued in the revenue record and respondent No. 4 sold his share through respondent No. 3 vide sale deeds dated 27/6/1994, 29/6/1994 etc in favour of respondents No. 5 to 12 (defendants No. 3 to 7). It was alleged that this sale was done without any legal necessity and without any consideration amount. It was also alleged that respondent No. 3 vide three separate sale deeds dated 2/8/1995 had sold the suit land to the present appellants (defendants No. 8 to 10). It was alleged that these sale deeds were executed by respondent No. 3 without any sale consideration and that respondents No. 1 and 2 had continued in possession of the suit land and appellants had tried to disturb their possession therefore, the present suit was filed. It was also alleged that in the partition, respondent No. 4 had received larger area of land admeasuring 4.255 hectare, whereas respondent No. 1 had received only 3.395 hectare therefor, the decree for further share of 0.319 hectare was prayed while challenging the sale deeds executed in favour of appellants.