Manindra Mohan Shrtvastava, J.

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-08-1999 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 112-A/1998, by which, the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendant.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants and deceased-defendant-respondent No. 3-Ramashankar Sharma for declaration and permanent injunction on the pleadings inter alia that the defendant No.5-Ramashankar, father of the plaintiffs received his share in the ancestral property under family partition from his father Sunderlal and thereafter, the partition of ancestral property took place between three sons, plaintiffs and one Prasann Kumar, on 01-06-1964 vide partition deed and thereafter, possession of respective share was also taken by the shareholders. After partition, the defendant No. 5-Ramashankar had no title or possession over the land in dispute. It was also pleaded that one of the brothers-Prasann Kumar died in the year 1979. In the year 1989, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have applied for demarcation and preparation of 'Rin Pustika' (debt book) in their name. Upon enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are claiming title and ownership over the land in dispute by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 06-04-1972 said to be executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant's father namely-Madan Lal Shukla. According to plaintiff's, their father (defendant No. 5) was close political associate and friend of one Madanlal Shukla. In order to contest election and acquire the status of local person, Madan Lal required land to be recorded in his name. On the request of Madan Lal Shukla, nominal sale deed was written by defendant No. 5-Ramashankar in favour of Madan Lal Shukla without any consideration and without there being any intention to sell. However, later on, Madan Lal and his heirs taking undue advantage of they being possessed of the sale deed dated 06-04-1972, got their names mutated in the revenue records whereas the possession of so-called property were continued with Ramashankar and plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of execution of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, the plaintiffs were minor and property falling in their share could not be sold by their father-Ramashankar without obtaining due permission from the District Judge. It was further pleaded that the sale deed is nominal as the recital in the sale deed shows very nominal amount of Rs. 1500/- as consideration for purchase of huge land ad measuring 12.60 acres. On these pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for decree of declaration that the sale deed is null, void and inoperative and prayed for grant of permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in their joint written statement denied the case of plaintiffs that the land in dispute was ancestral property. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was self-acquired property of Ramashankar and the plaintiffs have no interest in the property. 'Batwaranama' alleged to be executed amongst the plaintiff and Ramashankar and Prasann Kumar, was a fake document. Ramashankar voluntarily sold the land in dispute in favour of Madan Lal Shukla by receiving adequate consideration and executed sale deed which was duly registered. At the time of mutation, no objection was raised and ever since the date of sale, Madan Lal Shukla and after his death, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are continuing in possession of the property in dispute. The suit is barred by limitation and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have perfected their title by adverse possession. Even if it is assumed that the property in dispute was sold by Ramashankar, it being for legal necessity, is binding on the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Co