N.M. KASLIWAL, J. — This is a civil second appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 2,8.1972 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tonk dated 10 8.67 dismissing the suit for declaration and possession.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants (minors) filed a suit through their guardian Mathura Lal on 22.10.67 with the allegations that their father Nand Singh died four years ago at village Phuleta, Tehsil Aligarh. The plaintiffs were minor at that time and after the death of Nand Singh had acquired khatedari rights in the agricultural land left by Nand Singh and were heirs of other properties left by Nand Singh Initially the suit was filed against Anand Singh and Mst. Chhatra Kanwar widow of Nand Singh, but subsequently, Mst. Phool Kanwar daughter of Nand Singh was also added as defendant No. 3 by the order of the court dated 10.9.64. It was alleged that there was agricultural land in the khatedari of Nand Singh in village Phuleta. The defendant Anand Singh and Mst. Chhatra Kanwar in collusion got the agricultural land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint sold by Mst. Chhatra Kanwar in favour of Anand Singh for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- . The sale deed was got executed on 20th November, 1959 and was registered on 25.4 60. Mst. Chhatra Kanwar had no right to sale and get registered the aforesaid land belonging to plaintiffs, which was in the khatedari of their deceased father Nand Singh without seeking permission from a competent court nor Anand Singh had any right to purchase the aforesaid land of plaintiffs from Chhatra Kanwar The aforesaid sale and the sale deed were unauthorised, illegal and void. The plaintiffs after the death of their father had shifted from village Phuleta to village Sirash. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale in May, 1963 when they went to village Phuleta to look-after their properties. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the sale of the above mentioned agricultural land and registered sale deed dated 25.4.60 be declared void and inoperative and the plaintiffs be given possession over the land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint.

3. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement taking the plea that apart from the plaintiffs-defendant No. 2 Chhatra Kanwar and a daughter of Nand Singh were also heirs of deceased Nand Singh. The plaintiffs have only 1/2 share in the properties left by Nand Singh and they were living under the guardianship of their mother Chhatra Kanwar in the capacity of members of joint Hindu family and have no separate right in the properties. They live with their mother who was karta of joint Hindu family and in their presence and with their consent for legal necessity the land had been sold for Rs. 7,000/- by registered sale deed. This was done because Chhatra Kanwar needed money for the education and maintenance of plaintiffs and for paying the debts of deceased Nand Singh. The sale was not collusive but was genuine and with consideration and Chhatra Kanwar had right to sell the land. In the additional pleas, it was also alleged that the sale was made for the legal requirement of the family. The amount of Rs 7 000/- as consideration had been paid to Chhatra Kanwar mother and guardian of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief without the return of the aforesaid amount.

4. Mst. Chhatra Kanwar, defendant No. 2 also filed a written statement and inter-alia pleaded that she did not make any sale of disputed land in favour of Anand Singh She neither took Rs. 7,000/- nor executed any sale deed on 20th November, 1959 nor got it registered on 25. 4. 60. If Anand Singh had taken any fraudulent proceedings she had no knowledge about it. She had no right to sell any property of the plaintiffs and Anand Singh had no right to purchase the land without section from a competent court. If such sale deed has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document