Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The appellants were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 were the minor children of defendant no.2 and were represented by their mother. It was contended that the plaintiffs and defendants were the members of a joint family. Defendant no.4 was the purchaser of the suit property. It was contended that the first defendant was the karta of the joint family and the second defendant was the father of the plaintiffs and the son of defendant no.1. It was alleged that the second defendant had neglected the family consisting of the plaintiffs and their mother and had sold away the suit property in favour of defendant no.4 which was purchased out of the joint family funds. It is further stated that the suit property was constructed by spending huge amounts of money and the sale in favour of defendant no.4 had come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only immediately prior to the filing of the suit. It is after obtaining a copy of the sale deed dated 4.3.1996 that it was realized that the property had been sold for a pittance though it was worth several lakhs of rupees. The plaintiffs being minors, it was incumbent on defendants 1 to 3 to have obtained permission from the court in selling the property as their interest was involved and it is only on account of active collusion between defendants 1 to 3 that they have been deprived of their legitimate share in the suit properties. Hence, it was held that the sale deed was a document which was liable to be set at naught. It is on that basis that the suit relief was claimed.

The defendants had contested the suit and had denied the plaint allegations. It was also contended that the mother of the plaintiffs had no right to file a suit for partition during the lifetime of the second defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was also denied that the suit property was ancestral property. It was evident from the material on record, according to the defendants, that it was the self acquired property of defendant no.1 and it was his exclusive property over which defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 could not claim any right. The suit was apparently brought to deprive the fourth defendant of the benefit of purchase. The sale seed dated 4.3.1996 being a registered sale deed could not be set at naught at the instance of the plaintiffs unless it was established that the suit property was joint family property. Though these were the pleadings, at the stage of the trial, evidence was tendered by the plaintiffs to contend that the suit property had, in fact , been purchased from out of the sale proceeds of the joint family property which was brought to sale and having regard to the proximity of the transactions it could certainly be demonstrated that defendants 1 to 3 in active collusion with defendant no.4, had indicated a nominal consideration in respect of the sale though huge amounts were invested on the suit property. It was only in order to defraud the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in the said property.

The trial court having framed issues on the respective pleadings, had dismissed the suit while negating the issues against the plaintiffs. The same having been carried in appeal, the appellate court has in turn affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Incidentally, the plaintiffs sought to file two interlocutory applications before the lower appellate court in I.A.No.5 and I.A.No.7, I.A.No.5 is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’ for brevity), seeking to produce the registered sale deed dated 20.1.1975, whereby the property belonging to the family was sold in order to facilitate the purchase of the suit property. This acco