JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed on 13.01.1995 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1990 by the Court of 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No. 217 of 1979 whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the deceased defendant Ravjibhai Unabhai Patel dated 25.02.1976 came to be set aside, the heirs of the original defendant no. 1 has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The appeal came to be admitted way back on 18.04.1995.

3. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the deceased defendant no. 1 was bona-fide purchaser of the property and he was in occupation of property in question as a tenant and therefore defendant no. 2 as an administrator of the Panch-plaintiff has executed registered sale deed in his favour. It is also contended that consideration was paid to defendant no. 2. It is also contended that both the Courts below have committed error of facts and law in holding that the sale deed executed between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 is collusive one and without consideration and illegal. According to defendant no. 1, he is third party and therefore, he has nothing to do with the facts that who is authorized person to execute sale deed on behalf of the Panch-plaintiff. It is also contended that the Panch-plaintiff was not a registered Trust and has not having any written rules and regulations and in absence thereof, each one of the administrator of the Panch can execute the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1, that factor itself cannot be said to be illegal. It is also contended that both the Courts below have committed serious error of facts in setting aside the registered sale deed executed in favour of the deceased defendant no. 1.

4. The appellants are the heirs of defendant no. 1 and the respondents herein are original plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The original defendant no. 2 has not been joined in this appeal who is appellant no. 7 before the First Appellate Court. For the brevity and convenience the parties are referred to in this judgment as per the character assigned to them before the learned Trial Court.

5. It emerges from the records that the plaintiffs who are the administrators of the property which belongs to “Audichya Sahastra Brahman Panch” have filed a suit in a representative capacity contending that the property Gram Panchayat No. 536/1 of village Chaklasi which is an open land belongs to Panch-plaintiff. It is further alleged that the northern portion of the said land had been sold by the administrators of the Panch to the defendant no. 1 on 13.10.1952 and the remaining southern portion was in possession of the Panch. It is further contended that Gor Himmatbhai Krushnaram, Pandya Muljibhai Jethabhai, Jani Manibhai Motibhai, Joshi Mulshankar Bhikhabhai and Gor Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai were the original administrators of the Panch. It is contended that the defendant no. 2 was not the administrator of the Panch but any how, his name has been entered in the record as an administrator of the Panch, but, he has never administered the properties belonging to the Panch.

5.1. That amongst the original administrators only one Joshi Mulshankar Bhikhabhai was alive who was residing at Ahmedabad. At the time of filing of the suit, the new administrators of the Panch are appointed and the plaintiffs are amongst them who have got powers to file a suit. It is alleged that defendant no. 2 with collusion of defendant no. 1 and to cause damage to the Panch had transferred the suit land namely the southern portion of the property no. 536/1 by sale deed dated 25.02.1976. According to the plaintiff, the other administrator Joshi Mulshankar Bhikhabhai was kept in dark and the defendant no. 2 has transferred this property as if he is the owner