(1.) The defendants second set are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17 -5 -96, passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Khagaria, in Title Appeal No. 2 of 1993 (Krishnadeo Sharma v. Jitni Devi), whereby the plaintiffs' appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 5 - 3 -93, passed by the learned 1st Subordinate Judge, Khagaria, in Title Suit No. 80 of 1986 Krishnadeo Sharma v. Jitni Devi, has been set aside, and the suit has been decreed. The defendants second set (the appellants herein) are purchasers from defendants first set. The plaintiffs are the respondents herein. We shall go by the description of the parties before the trial Court.
(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole surviving heirs of Late Dahu Sharma @ Dahu Das, to set aside the registered sale deed dated 21 -7 -80 executed by defendant first party (Jitni Devi), in favour of defendants second party (the appellants herein), being void, and for the declaration that the Jamabandi created in favour of the defendant second party (the appellants herein) is illegal.
(3.) The case of the plaintiffs in short is that one Dahu Sharma died in the year 1980 leaving behind his wife (widow Sanjho Devi), his son (Krishnadeo Sharma), and his grandson (Arjun Sharma). The plaintiffs are the members of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law, and plaintiff No. 1 is the Karta of the family. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the lands of Khata No. 272, comprising of plot Nos. 528 and 829, measuring 2 bighas, situate in mauja Pakrail, within Gogri P.S., has been alienated by defendant 1st party on 21 -7 -86, falsely claiming herself to be the widow of Dahu Sharma, in favour of defendant IInd party, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ -. The sale -deed is void ab initio. The plaintiffs succeeded to the property left by Dahu Sharma @ Dahu Das and continue to be in possession thereof. The further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant 1st party is a wanton lady and left her home, roamed about and developed immoral relationship with Dahu Sharma. The defendant 1st party had come with a child from before named Manohar Sharma, not born of her illegitimate relationship with Dahu Sharma. The defendant 1st party has no right to alienate the properties belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the land left by Dahu Sharma, being the heirs and survivors of Dahu Sharma. The deed in question is void and the jamabandi created in the names of the defendants is illegal, collusive, not binding on plaintiffs. Execution of the sale -deed and the threats by the defendant IInd party regarding dispossession from Schedule -A land necessitated the filing of the suit.