(Rajiv Sharma, J.) - A challenge has been laid by way of this second appeal to the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur dated 1.6.1995 rendered in civil appeal No. 117/1989.

2.The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff Braham Dass alias Brahmu had filed a suit against the appellants-defendants No. 1 and 2, i.e. Madan Lal and Roshan Lal and the proforma defendant Sh. Haria for possession under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with respect to the suit land. It was alleged by the plaintiff Braham Dass that he and defendant Haria are the real brothers and they had inherited the suit land from their father Sh. Bhagtu. Sh. Haria sold his entire share of the suit land in favour of Sh. Madan Lal and Roshan Lal without notice to the plaintiff and without any legal necessity. The plaintiff impressed upon the defendants to accept the sale consideration but they did not agree to the same. The suit property was alleged to be coparcenary property and joint Hindu property inter se Sh. Braham Dass and defendant Sh. Haria. Since the appellants Madan Lal and Roshan Lal refused to re-transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff Sh. Braham Dass, the suit was filed. The learned Senior Sub Judge framed the following issues on 8.12.1987 :

1. Whether the land in suit is coparcenary property of Hindu Joint Family consisting of plaintiff and defendant No. 3 ? OPP

2. Whether the sale by defendant No. 3 to defendants No. 1 and 2 of the property in sit is without legal necessity and without consideration and as such, illegal and void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs and other reversioners as alleged (onus objected)?

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff for pre-empting the sale under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act as framed is competent ? OPP

4. If issue No. 1 to 3 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed ?OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ?OPD

7. Relief.

3.The findings recorded by the learned Senior Sub Judge on the aforesaid issues are as under :-

Issue No. 1No.

Issue No. 2No.

Issue No. 3Yes

Issue No. 4Yes, U/S 22 of the Hindu Succession Act

Issue No. 5No.

Issue No. 6Not pressed.

Issue No. 7No.

Issue No. 7Suit, decreed for prayer (A) as per operative portion of the judgment.

4.The learned Senior Sub Judge vide judgment dated 25.8.1989 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff Shri Braham Dass for possession under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in respect of the suit land subject to the plaintiff’s depositing a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in the court within three months failing which the suit of the plaintiff was to be dismissed with costs. The appellants Madan Lal and Roshan Lal filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in civil suit No. 140-1 of 1987 in the court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur framed the following points for determination :

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is legally and factually sustainable ?

2. Final order.

5.The learned District Judge has recorded the following findings on the aforesaid points :-

1. Yes.

2. The appeal is dismissed as per the operative portion of the judgment.

6.The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants on 1.6.1995. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

1. What is the effect of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act on concluded sale whereupon the bona fide purchaser has acted on the representation of the seller and the other heir opted to remain silent thereupon ?

2. Whether in the absence of coparcenary and joint Hindu Family at the time of th