The validity of a sale deed executed by a Hindu Undivided Family member is upheld when legal necessity is demonstrated, despite claims of ancestral rights by co-parceners.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2013 passed in R.A. No.1 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 13.12.2012 passed in O.S. No.97 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare the registered sale deed dated 19.04.1993 as null and void, and not binding on the share of the plaintiffs, and to cancel the sale deed dated 19.04.1993 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons, and plaintiff No.3 is the daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu Undivided Family and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2.

6. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. The sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Hence, this suit.

7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2, and also that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and they are the members of a Hindu Undivided family. It is contended that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by one Jalimarada Thippaiah i.e., the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the father of defendant No.1 and he acquired the said property in a partition and the khata was changed in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further, the above said defendants supported the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed to decree the suit.

8. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is a collusive suit and defendant Nos.1 and 2, to extract more money from defendant No.3, got filed the present suit through the plaintiffs and it is contended that the suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No.1 in a partition deed effected on 16.04.1992 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 and executed the registered sale deed dated 19.04.1993 after receiving the valid consideration amount and defendant Nos.1 and 2 delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3. It is further contended that defendant No.3, by virtue of the sale deed, is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and it is also contended that the plaintiffs have not included the other ancestral properties. The suit for a partial partition is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.3.

9. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the foll