JUDGMENT:- This second appeal arises out of regular Civil Suit No. 854 of 1961 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 5 is the mother of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 6 is the father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 6 was original defendant No. 3. The present appellant was defendant No. 2 in the trial Court and respondent No. 7 in this appeal is original defendant No. 1. The dispute relates to plot No. 151/1 situate at mouza Nari, Nagaur. On 1-3-1937 one Sitaram Ragho Chawan acting for himself and as a guardian of his minor son Eknath made an agreement of sale in favour of original defendant No. 3 Naravandas in respect of 8 acres from field No. 151. Under that agreement an earnest amount of Rs. 200/- was paid by defendant No. 3 to Sitaram. The agreement was that the property should be sold for an amount of Rs. 2.500/to defendant No. 3. On 19-4-1937 Sitaram acting for himself and his minor son made a sale deed in favour of Antu, the father of defendant No. 3 Naravandas. That sale deed was for a sum of Rs. 2,500 and the recitals in that sale deed show that the vendor acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 200/- under the agreement of sale made in favour of defendant No. 3 on 1-3-1937. Under this sale deed 8 acres of land from the field which was then numbered as field survey No. 151/1 was sold to Antu. The Isar-chitti dated 1-3-1937 is Exh.34. The sale-deed in favour of Antu is Exh.17. On 29-9-1954 defendant No. 3 Naravandas sold to defendant No. 1 by Exh.31 field survey No. 151/1 measuring 8 acres. That sale-deed was for a sum of Rs. 4,150/-. Defendant No. 1 Abdul Rahim in his turn by Exh.29 dated 4-4-1957 sold the same property field, survey No. 151/1 to the present defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 4,300/-. After the sale was made in favour of defendant No. 2 the present suit was filed by the four sons and the wife of Narayandas. They claimed that survey No. 151/1 was the property purchased by Antu on 19-4-1937. After the death of Antu, they alone with defendant No. 3 are heirs of Antu. Defendant No. 3 Narayandas, therefore, had only 1/6th share in survey No. 151/1 and, therefore, the sale-deeds dated 29-9-1954 (Exh.31) and 4-4-1957 (Exh.29) are not binding on their 5/6th share in the property. The relief, therefore, claimed is for a declaration that the plaintiffs had 5/6th share in the suit field and they have consequently prayed for relief of possession.

2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the suit. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement at Exh.14 and written statement filed by defendant No. 2 was at Exh.10. Defendant No. 3 Narayandas was ex parte. To summarise the contentions taken up on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 it may be stated that their case was that the sale-deed of 19-4-1937 was really a transaction made by defendant No. 3 Narayandas. According to them in that sale-deed Antu was only a benamidar for defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 had purchased this property from out of his self-earnings in, the name of his father. It was, therefore, contended that defendant No. 3 was competent to transfer full title to defendant No. 1 under the sale-deed dated 29-9-1954 and consequently defendant No. 1 had obtained full ownership under that sale-deed. The further contention was that sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 4-4-1957 also gave full ownership to defendant No. 2. It was, therefore, contended that the plaintiffs could not claim any share in the suit property. On account of the pleadings between the parties issues were framed by the learned trial Judge at Exh.15. He found that the defendants established that the property purchased in the name of Antu on 19-4-1937 was really a purchase made by defendant No. 3, that field survey No. 151/1 was the self-acquired property of defendant 3. He found that the case of the plaintiffs that the property was of the ownership of Antu was not established He accordingly held that the defendant No. 3 was competent to transfer the property to defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document