JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 24-11-2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2017 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. The suit was filed by Rakesh Kumar Agrawal and Smt. Bhumika Devi Agrawal, plaintiffs, with the pleading, inter-alia, that:

(i) they formed a joint Hindu family along with Subhash Chandra Agrawal (Defendant No. 1); Smt. Beena Devi Agrawal (Defendant No. 2) and Nidhi Agrawal (Defendant No. 3) and they had divided the property and thereafter they were in possession of the respective suit property and memorandum of partition was executed on 20-9-2004 wherein the defendants No. 1 to 3 signed the document in presence of Prabhuram Agrawal and Radheshyam Bansal.

(ii) plaintiffs further pleaded that pursuant to the memorandum of partition, defendants No. 1 and 2 on 20-9-2004 executed an affidavit to fortify the facts of the earlier partition.

(iii) according to the plaintiffs, they were in possession of the property as per the earlier partition effected and the subject property of memorandum includes land bearing khasra No. 890/32 and 890/34 situated at Korba; immovable property of 4500 sq. ft. situated at Indira Awasiya Evam Vyavasayik Parisar; office at Transport Nagar, Korba and house situated over khasra No. 493/206 area 1500 sq. ft.

(iv) the plaintiffs stated that apart from the said property the other immovable and movable property have also been received by the plaintiffs for which no dispute exists.

(v) plaintiffs further contended that defendants No. 1 and 2 being abetted by their daughter Nidhi Agrawal (Defendant No. 3), the house situated over khasra No. 493/206, which was received by the plaintiffs, wanted to execute Daanpatra ¼nkui=½ in favour of their daughter and obtained permission from the Collector wherein the plaintiffs objected, however, the said objection was dismissed on 20-3-2016.

(vi) it was contended by the plaintiffs that defendants No. 1 and 2 were bent upon to transfer the said property in favour of the defendant No. 3 and in respect of the another house of the plaintiffs, which is situated at Durpa Road, efforts were also made to transfer the same in favour of the daughter.

(vii) the plaintiffs stated that in respect of the property (office) at Natraj Hotel, which was received by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2 has put a lock and has agreed to sell the said property to Naresh Trading Company and defendants No. 4 and 5 have put their board over such property.

(viii) the plaintiffs contended that the compromise has been effected between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 that defendant No. 1 will pay the bank loan and if he want to sell the office premises admeasuring 22 x 12 sq. ft. the plaintiffs will vacate the same whereas against the compromise effected, a lock was put on the same premises.

(ix) the plaintiffs next pleaded that during pendency of the suit, the office premises was sold to defendants No. 4 and 5 in the year 2017 and the defendants No. 4 and 5 do not get any right or title as they would be governed by the rules of lis pendens.

(x) according to the plaintiffs they are in possession of the office property as per the partition effected, however, since the dispute occurred, they shifted to another house at Durpa Road.

(xi) the plaintiffs stated that the names were not mutated in the revenue record, therefore, taking advantage of it, defendants No. 1 and 2 wanted to eliminate the right of the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants No. 1 to 3 on the contrary stated that:

(i) the relation of the plaintiffs and the defendants has been terminated which was published in the newspaper and the relation of father and mother (defendants No. 1 and 2) with son and daughter-in-law (plaintiffs) has ceased to exist.

(ii) the defendants contended that in order to have peaceful atmosphere, on 20-9-2004 a partition deed was executed, but after some days it was not followed and earli