JUDGMENT:- The appellant herein is original defendant No.2. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment rendered by the first appellate Court, confirming the trial Court's decree, with little modification, holding that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. original plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 Kausalyabai are inoperative and were obtained by playing fraud and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit properties alongwith mesne profits.

2. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by their nomenclature in the trial Court. The Respondent No.1 Kausalya was plaintiff No.1. Respondent No.2 Sarangdhar is her son and was plaintiff Wo.2, whereas Respondent No.3 Asrabai is her daughter and was plaintiff No.3 in the trial Court. They filed suit (R.C.S. No.40/90) for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff No.1 are not binding on them. They sought recovery of possession of the suit properties consisting of agricultural lands and share to the extent of two annas in mango trees as described in Schedule appended with the plaint.

3. Originally one Gangaram Korde held the suit pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document