UMESH SONI Vs. KAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgement and decree dtd. 6/12/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (for brevity-"the learned appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.38/2006 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgement and decree dtd. 26/7/2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kota (for brevity-"the learned trial court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.30/1998 filed for declaration and possession of the suit shop, has been affirmed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (for brevity-'the defendants') stating therein that in a joint hindu family property comprising of a house with three shops situated in Agrasen Bazar, Purani Dhan Mandi, Kota as described in para no.1 of the plaint, he acquired co-ownership along with his mother and two siblings after the death of his father in the year 1980. It was alleged that without any legal necessity or without seeking prior permission of the Court, his mother, the defendant no.3, sold a shop, a part of joint hindu family property, in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dtd. 8/9/1987 which was void ab initio. It was therefore prayed that the sale deed dtd. 8/9/1987 be declared null and void against his rights and possession of the suit shop be restored to him. The defendants no.1, 2 and 6 stated in their joint written statement that plaintiff's mother has sold the subject shop for family necessity in her capacity as natural guardian of the plaintiff and her two other children as they all were minor at the relevant time. It was averred that financial condition of Shri Shanti Lal, late father of the plaintiff, was not healthy and he died leaving behind a huge debt which was paid by the defendant no.3 and to meet day to day requirement of the family, the subject shop was sold by her.

(3.) The defendants no.7 and 8 stated in their joint written statement that they have purchased the suit shop from the defendants no.1 and 2 bonafidely without being aware of the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff in his rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondents no.7 and 8, averred that since they have purchased the suit shop despite intimation by him of the stay order by the learned trial court, they were not bonafide purchaser.