Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the defendants is as under:-

"Whether both the courts below are justified in passing a decree of possession of entire suit land shown in Schedule "A" of the plaint after having held that the plaintiffs are entitled and are title holders of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share in the land mentioned in Schedule "A" of the plaint ?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among the parties:-

Udaipuriha Bargah
Jagna (Dead)			Topri (Dead)			Hira Sai	Manbodh Issueless
Ramjivan	Ghurvin (Dfd.3)	Tengna				Mahesh (Dfd. No.2)
			Mankunwar (Dead)		Etwari (Dfd. No.1)
			Lakshmania (Daughter) (Dead-84)
			Jheluram (Plt.1)	Shivprasad (Plt.2)

Two plaintiffs namely Jelu and Shiv Prasad filed a suit for declaration that sale deed dated 24.2.86 (Ex.P/1) executed by defendant No.1-Etwaro in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 is null and void. They further sought relief of possession of the suit land described in Schedule "A" of the plaint and questioned the said sale deed on the ground of having been purchased on the basis of fraud and non-payment of consideration. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the suit land was acquired by Topri stating that Lakshmania was daughter of Topri through his first wife Mankunwar and defendant No.1-Itwaro was his second wife of Topri, who died during pendency of the suit. It was further pleaded that Lakshmania was kept as Gharjian daughter and the plaintiffs are sons of Lakshmania. They also pleaded that name of Etwaro was mutated after death of her husband Topri as owner of the land. Defendant No.1-Itwaro never executed sale deed dated 24.2.86 (Ex.P/1) in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 as said sale deed was got registered after playing fraud against her and without giving any consideration and decree of declaration declaring sale deed as null and void was sought.

3. The defendants filed their written statement opposing the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that Topri died in the year 1954 and after his death defendant No.1 came into possession of the suit land as owner and on the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 she became absolute owner and further remained in exclusive possession till the execution of sale deed dated 24.2.86 and prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.9.92, held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/2 of share in the suit property shown in Schedule "A" and sale deed dated 24.2.86 was got executed by defendants No.2 to 4 by playing fraud and without paying consideration and since defendant No.1 has died issueless, the plaintiffs also inherited her property and entitled for possession of the property shown in Schedule "A" of the plaint. The said finding has been upheld by the First Appellate Court. Questioning legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by defendants No.2 and 4, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been setout in opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for legal representatives of defendants No.2 and 4, would submit that the both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in passing the decree of possession of entire suit land described in Schedule "A" of the plaint after having held that the plaintiffs are entitled and title-holders of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share described in Schedule "A