K. J. ROHEE, J.

( 1 ) ORIGINAL defendant No 1 preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree ot the District Judge, Buldhana in regular Civil Appeal No 31/1984 allowing the appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs and decreeing their suit for possession of the suit land by setting aside dismissal of their regular Civil Suit No 240/1982 by 2nd Jt civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldhana

( 2 ) THE facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that namdeo Ganpat Hiwale was the owner of 2 acres, 2 gunthas (83 R) of land in Survey no 164/1, Gat No 210 area, 6 acres, 33 gunthas Namdeo Hiwale died on 8-6-1979 plaintiff No 7 is his widow plaintiffs No 1, 2 and defendant No 2 are his sons and plaintiffs No 3 to 6 are his married daughters

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS No 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted suit for declaration and possession of 1 acre, 14 gunthas of land out of 2 acres, 2 gunthas land According to them during the life-time ot Namdeo Hiwale he did not effect partition of the land He, however, had given 1 acre, 14 gunthas of land out of the said field to defendant No 2 for his maintenance. Defendant No. 2 had no right to transfer the said land. The plaintiffs learnt that on 8-6- 1978 defendant No. 2 executed nominal sale deed of 2 acres, 2 gunthas (83 R) of land in favour of defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" ). In fact defendant No. 2 had no right to sell the said land and the alleged transaction of sale is not binding on the plaintiffs. After the death of Namdeo hiwale, the plaintiffs have become owners of the said field by inheritance. The appellant does not acquire any right, title and interest in the said field on the basis of nominal sale deed dated 8-6-1978. The appellant is in illegal possession of the said land. The plaintiffs requested him to deliver possession of the land to them but the appellant neglected. Hence on 5-10-1981 the plaintiffs issued notices to the appellant and defendant no. 2 requesting them to deliver possession of the suit land. However, the appellant did not deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiffs instituted suit lor possession and for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 8-6-1978 is not binding on them.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs by his written statement.

( 5 ) THE appellant however resisted the suit. According to the appellant there had been partition between Namdeo Ganpat hiwale and defendant No. 2 because of which defendant No. 2 became owner of the said land and was in possession thereof. Defendant no. 2 had every authority to sell the said land. Accordingly he sold it to the appellant for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,000/- with the consent of Namdeo Hiwale. The plaintiffs instituted suit in collusion with defendant no. 2 with intent to extract money from the appellant.

( 6 ) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court held that the suit field was a joint family property; that there was partition between namdeo Hiwale and defendant No. 2; that namdeo Hiwale and the plaintiffs had given consent to the transaction of sale by defendant no. 2. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit.

( 7 ) THE appellate Court, however, held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 became owners of the suit land after the death of Namdeo Hiwale; that alienation of the suit land made by defendant No. 2 in favour of the appellant during the life time of Namdeo hiwale was illegal and void; that the suit field could not have been partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector under section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The appellate Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment.

( 8 ) SHRI. S. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the ap