JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2021 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, in civil suit No.23-A/2018 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants, who were three in numbers, was dismissed.

2. Admitted facts are that on 25-1-2017 defendant No.1 Smt. Sangeeta Kashyap, purchased the property from the defendant No.4 Baldau Prasad Singroul, who is the father of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, another sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants No.2 & 3 namely; Ramanuj Singroul & Geetaram Singroul, respectively. The suit property is comprised of khasra No.119/1 admeasuring 1.83 acres and khasra No.118/2 admeasuring 0.95 acres, total area comprised of 2.78 acres. Subsequent to their purchase, the names of defendants No.2 & 3 were recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that the property in question, which was initially sold by the defendant No.4 in favour of the defendant No.1, he could not have sold the lands, being a co-parcenary property and the plaintiffs being the co-parcerners have vested interest in it.

3. The defendant No.1 resisted the suit on the ground that the purchase, which was initially made by her on 25-1-2017 was valid and the sale deed was properly executed. The defendant No.4, father of the plaintiffs, being the karta was entitled to execute the sale deed, which was for the legal necessity. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed on 25-4-2018 in favour of the defendants No.2 & 3 by two subsequent sale deeds. It was further stated that in order to annul the sale on false and fabricated grounds the plaintiffs, who were the son & daughters of the defendant No.4, the seller, with a collusion, the suit was filed and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. The defendant No.4 stated that he obtained a loan of Rs. 6.00 lacs from the husband of the defendant No.1 namely; Ashwani Kashyap and an agreement was executed by exerting pressure and the sale deed was subsequently got executed, therefore, execution of sale deed was under coercion and pressure not for any legal necessity.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge framed 11 issues and held that the suit property was a co-parcenary property and the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant No.4 (seller) and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs.

6. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the finding on the issue that the suit property was a co-parcenary property is not under challenge, therefore, that issue of finding of co-parcenary property has attained the finality. He would further submit that the defendant No.4, who had initially executed the sale deed on 25-1-2017 in favour of the defendant No.1, the plaintiffs being the other co-parceners, could not have been sold the entire property alone by the defendant No.4. He would also submit that perusal of the sale deed would show that it was not for any legal necessity, therefore, the sale deed could not have been executed. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Vaman Sharma & Others v. Smt. Namita Baidhmutha & Others, 2023 (3) CGLJ 114 (DB) to submit that no legal necessity existed. He also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Chameli Kaushik & Others v. Koushilya Bai Patel & Others, 2023 (2) CGLJ 264 to submit that by sale of one of the co-parcener, the vendee cannot be put to a particular possession.

6 (ii) Learned counsel went through the statements of the plaintiffs and the defendant to submit that legal necessity has not been proved and further referring to the statement of Ashwani Kashyap (DW-4), husband of the defendant No.1, he would