P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. Heard. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2005 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Kabirdham (Kawardha), in Civil Appeal No. 51-A/2002. By way of the said judgment dated 13.1.2005, the first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Kabirdham, has in fact confirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002 passed by the trial Court i.e. IInd Civil Judge, Class-I, Kawardha, in Civil Suit No. 47-A/2001.

2. Facts leading to the instant second appeal are that the suit land is situated at Khasra No. 340/6 total land measuring to 0.31 acre. The said suit land originally belonged to Gopal Prasad, Bharat Prasad and Shatrudhan. From the three, Gopal Prasad and Bharat Prasad have since died. Of the suit land, 0.20 acre of land was sold by Gopal Prasad when he was alive to the appellant by registered sale deed dated 12.12.1985 (Annexure P/1). Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Bharat Prasad and respondent No. 5 was plaintiff No. 2 before the trial Court. Respondents No. 6 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased Gopal Prasad who was defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. It was Bharat Prasad and respondent No. 5, who were the original plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed the suit for declaration and possession of the suit land measuring 0.20 acre stating therein that the said registered sale deed dated 12.12.1985 (Annexure P/1) is not binding upon them as at the time of the sale, their consent has not been taken by deceased Gopal Prasad. Secondly, the plaintiffs have also taken a plea that on the date when the registered sale deed was executed by Gopal Prasad, Shatrudhan was a minor and for that reason also, Gopal Prasad did not have the authority for selling the suit land over and above his share in the property. It was also the contention of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that no partition has taken place between the three brothers (Gopal Prasad, Bharat Prasad and Shatrudhan) and, therefore, also the sale deed executed by Gopal Prasad would not be binding upon the plaintiffs and that the said registered sale deed dated 12.12.1985 to that extent is also void.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that after the sale deed was executed on 12.12.1985 by Gopal Prasad without their knowledge, defendant No. 1 i.e. the appellant in the instant second appeal, moved an application before the office of Naib Tehsildar, Kawardha, for mutation and when these proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar, Kawardha, came to the notice of the plaintiffs, they immediately appeared before Naib Tehsildar and objected to the same and finally, the Naib Tehsildar, rejected the application for mutation of defendant No. 1. The said order of Naib Tehsildar was subjected to challenge by appellant/defendant No. 1 before the office of S.D.O., Kawardha, who had rejected the same on the ground of limitation. Against which, the appellant/defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the office of Additional Commissioner, Raipur, who, vide his order dated 10.1.1995, remitted the matter back to the office of S.D.O., Kawardha, for deciding the said case on its own merits. The S.D.O., Kawardha, in turn, remitted the matter back to the office of Naib Tehsildar, Bodla, for deciding the matter afresh and the Naib Tehsildar, vide his order dated 16.5.1996 passed an order for entering the name of the appellant/defendant No. 1 in the revenue records. According to the plaintiffs, it is on this date the cause of action arose and, therefore, they had immediately filed a suit before the trial Court seeking a declaration and also possession over the suit property. Appellant/defendant No. 1 entered appearance before the Court below and submitted written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and said that the property did not belong to the plaintiffs, but it belonged to only Gopal Prasad as is evident from the name of