( 30 ) EVEN assuming that Ex. A-3 was not ante-dated, and was in fact executed on 5-10-1982, and even assuming that there was an oral agreement on 15-8-1977 also, in favour of plaintiffs and therefore are persons interested in the property covered by Ex. A-3, as held in Bai Dosaibai (26 supra) and Kartar Singh (27 supra), they have no locus to question Ex. B-16, which is a registered document of the year 1972 which is long prior to 15-8-1977 when the oral agreement referred to in Ex. A-3 is said to have been entered into. 4th defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant, has a share in the released property under Ex. B,-16 and also the property covered by Ex. A-3 as well. Under Hindu Law, in respect of coparcenary property, the son does not claim through his father and has a right by birth in the coparcenary property. Therefore 4th defendant also is competent to speak about Ex. B-16. It is contended that since 4th defendant, as D. W. 3 stated that Ex. B-16 is a deed of partition and since the recitals therein do not show that it is partition deed, it cannot be taken into consideration. As stated earlier the recitals in Ex. B-16 clearly show that out of the joint family properties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document