ORDER :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No.123-A/2016, whereby the suit filed for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.7.2013 (Ex-P/1) was dismissed. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit claiming for cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.7.2013 (Ex-P/1) executed by Gulabchand Dubey/defendant No.2 in favour of Smt. Namita Baidhmutha/defendant No.1 to be void one. To appreciate the rights, the relation of parties would be necessary. Description of the parties i.e. the plaintiffs/appellants and defendant No.2 (since deceased) shown herein as under:-

3. The plaintiffs/appellants contended that without any legal necessity, Gulabchand Dubey, father of the plaintiffs/appellants has sold the following khasra Nos. i.e. Khasra Nos.292/2 area 0.148 hectare, 328/2 area 0.103 hectare, 345/2 area 0.054 hectare and 370/2 area 0.050 total area 0.355 hectare by a registered sale deed dated 11.7.2013, they be declared void while in respect of one Khasra No.202/2, declaration and injunction was sought for. The plaintiffs contended that Vaman Sharma, who was born on 30.8.2001 and Ku. Namrata Sharma, born on 17.11.1997 and Smt. Naina born on 11.02.1992, have joint share in respect of the property as the property fell to the share of Gulabchand through their ancestors thereby the nucleus of devolution is not self acquired. It is contended that despite the fact that the plaintiffs have vested right in the property, Gulabchand exclusively without any legal necessity sold the property to the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, which requires to be cancelled and apart from it, in respect of Khasra No.202/2, declaration and injunction order may be passed.

4. Defendant No.1, the purchaser, admitted the relation of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, the father of the plaintiffs from whom she purchased the property. It was stated that after partition of the ancestral property, Gulabchand, the seller, got the property and was recorded as a sole and exclusive owner and he was enjoying the same. Consequently, it was his separate individual property which was purchased by her by sale deed dated 11.7.2013. The defendant No.1 further contended that the property being separate and individual, the plaintiffs could not have lay any claim over the property and Gulabchand was entitled to sell the property.

5. The learned Court of Additional District Judge, framed six issues and refused to annul the sale deed dated 11.7.2013 and also held that subject property was not proved to be the ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.2 and eventually dismissed the suit, hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has completely misdirected itself to see the pleading in as much as the pleading categorically contains the admission that subject property was not a self acquired property of Gulabchand. She would further submit that when the property passed through from the ancestral nucleus and the partition is effected further when son and daughters are alive, in such case the property would be treated as coparcenary property and coparceners would get the share in it. She placed reliance in the matter of Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and Others (2013) 9 SCC 419 to submit that partitioned share of ancestral property held by single person again would become coparcenary property the moment child is born to such holder of the partitioned share of the ancestral property. She would further submit that in th