( 1 ) ORIGINAL plaintiffs have approached this Court against the concurrent dismissal of their suit, which was filed seeking partition and separate possession of 1/6th share of each of the plaintiffs in the suit property (renumbered four pieces of land Survey No. 131 and a house of village tembhurni, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded) from defendant Nos. 4 to 9, and a declaration that the sale deed dated 13-9-1956 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 to be not binding upon the interest of the plaintiffs. Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 1977 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, junior Division, Biloli, vide his judgment and order dated 10-3-1981. Feeling aggrieved, the original plaintiffs approached the District Court, vide Regular civil Appeal No. 129 of 1981, which was also dismissed by District Judge, nanded, by his judgment and order dated 31-12-1984.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS have approached the trial Court with the following contentions: the deceased defendant No. 1 Shrinivasrao was the father of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3. (Due to death of Shrinivasrao during the pendency of the suit, widow Mainabai and daughters Vaijayanti, Vijaya and shantabai are brought on record as co-defendants ). Defendant Nos. 4 to 9 are not concerned with the family of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Deceased Shrinivasrao was addicted to bad habits of consuming Ganja and gambling and to meet his illegal desires, he used to borrow loans from defendant no. 4 Madhavrao and father of defendant No. 8 namely Hanmanta. Taking undue advantage of this weakness of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 4 got executed a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of suit land Survey No. 131/a, admeasuring 10 Acres 7 Gunthas without paying adequate consideration, on 10- 9-1956. The transaction was not for legal necessity. When this sale deed was executed, plaintiff No. 3 Uttam and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Panditrao and subhash were living. (Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and defendants Nos. 1/2 and 1/3 were then not born ). According to the plaintiff, even plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who are bom after plaintiff No. 3, have a right to agitate under the doctrine of "overlapping", because the claim of plaintiff No. 3 is not time barred. It is contended by the plaintiffs that this sale deed is not binding upon them. It is further added that, defendant No. 4 Madhavrao has illegally occupied over portion admeasuring 5 Acres 3 Gunthas i. e. Survey No. 131/c/1 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are illegally occupying portions of the suit land. Defendant no. 4 has got his name mutated illegally. Father of defendant No. 8 namely Hanmanta was occupying Survey No. 131/b admeasuring 5 Acres 3 Gunthas on lease. He got his name mutated as purchasers without any legal document. On the basis of above averments, the plaintiffs claimed that the transactions of the suit land are not binding upon them and they have prayed for partition and separate possession of l/6th share of each of the plaintiffs, by eviction of the defendants and by declaration regarding sale deed dated 13-9-1956 not being binding upon them.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 preferred to remain ex parte and suit was contested only by defendant Nos. 7 and 9. According to them, the suit property was the self acquired property of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, he was exclusive owner and possessor of the same. He had no other occupation except agriculture and the suit land being Kharab land was not yielding sufficient income. His house had suffered extensive damages due to rainfall. His family was running into debts and, therefore, defendant No. 1 sold away part of Survey no 131 admeasuring 10 Acres 6 Gunthas in favour of Hanmanta and Madhavrao for consideration of Rs. 4,000/ -. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 sold further land in favour of Madhavrao by a sale deed dated 10-9-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/