The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the applicability of the Registration Act, 1908 in validating the execution of a sale deed.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. - Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13-1-2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2007 whereby and whereunder he decreed the suit of respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. This is admitted by respondents No. 1 to 5 that some lands including disputed land bearing Khasra No. 202 /4 admeasuring 1.12 acre were in the name of respondent No. 3 Heeraram at village Mukta. Respondent No. 3 had executed a registered sale deed on 20-3-2003 regarding disputed land in favour of deceased appellant Bhukharam. This is also admitted by deceased appellant Bhukharam and present appellants that respondents No. 1 and 2 had given notice to late Bhukharam which was not replied by him. This is also admitted by respondent No. 3 to 5 that father of respondent No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is respondent No. 3 Heeraram, disputed land is ancestral property of them and respondents No. 1 and 2, they are in possession of disputed land. Taking the advantage of weak ability to understand and think due to old age of respondent No. 3 and administering liquor, deceased appellant Bhukharam got executed said registered sale deed from respondent No. 3 Heeraram. No possession was handed over of disputed land to late appellant Bhukharam. There was no necessity for sell of disputed land.

3. In brief, the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 is that no consideration was given to respondent No. 3 Heeraram by late Bhukharam. The said registered sale deed is not binding upon them. If it is found that they are not in the possession of disputed land then possession may be handed over to them. Permanent injunction may be granted against appellants.

4. In brief, case of appellants is that respondent No. 3 Heeraram had sold the disputed land by aforesaid registered sale deed for Rs. 1,30,500/- to late Bhukharam. The consideration was paid to him. Respondent No. 3 sold disputed land on account of domestic expenses. After registry they are in continuous possession of disputed land. The disputed land is self acquired property of respondent No. 3 Heeraram. At the time of aforesaid sale, respondent No. 3 was manager of the family.

5. By the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court decreed the suit of respondents No.1 and 2. Being aggrieved, late Bhukaram preferred the instant appeal which is being pursued by present appellants.

6. In brief the appellants'' case regarding this appeal is that trial Court did not frame the issue regarding coparcenary property but gave the finding. Respondent No. 3 is still alive and neither he filed any suit against late Bhukharam nor lodged any report to any police station. Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

7. Points for determination:-

There are following points for determination in the case in hand:-

(i) Whether disputed land Khasra No. 202/4 admeasuring 1.12 acre is the coparcenary property qua respondents No. 1 Suraj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Sudama ?

(ii) Whether late Bhukharam had got executed said registered sale deed Ex. D-1 (Photocopy Ex. P-1) from respondent No. 3 Heeraram taking advantage of his weak ability to understand and think due to old age and administering liquor to him and without giving any consideration ?

(iii) Whether respondent No. 3 had legal necessity to sale the disputed land ?

(iv) Whether respondent No. 1 and 2 are stopped to challenge the execution of Ex. D-1 ?

(v) Whether registered sale deed Ex. D-1 is not binding upon respondent No. 1 and 2 ?

(vi) Whether respondent No. 1 & 2 are also title holder of the disputed land ?

(vii) Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 are also entitled to get vacant possession of the disputed land from the appellants ?

(viii) Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 are also entitled to get permanent injunction against the appellants ?

(ix) Whether appellants are entitled to get compensatory cost Rs. 3,000/- from respondent No. 1 and 2 ?

(x) Reliefs and costs.

Point