The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property in question was not Joint Hindu Co-parcenary property, and the plaintiffs did not constitute a Joint Hindu Family with the defendant No. 2.

Talrok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, in Civil Appeal No. 42/2009 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barsar, Camp at Una, in Civil Suit No. 215/1993, RBT No. 2/2007, dismissing the suit of the appellants plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs).

2. "Key facts" leading to the filing of the appeal may be noticed thus.

3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunctions qua the land comprised in Khewat No. 26 min, Khatauni Nos. 50 and 51, Khasra No. 518/2 and 519, land measuring 0-03-84 hectares, situate in Tika Chhatarpur, Tehsil and District, Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2 Prem Dutt Sharma (now deceased), whereas, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are his minor sons and daughter constituting a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Hindu Laws and custom prevalent in the Brahmin community in the area. It was also averred that the defendant No. 2 was an idle person and was not contributing anything towards the liabilities of the family. He was an addict to alcohol and the suit land and the entire other property was owned by the defendant No. 2 which is ancestral property as the same has been inherited from common ancestors by succession and as such the property of defendant No. 2 is co-parcenary ancestral property and the defendant No. 2 was not in exclusive possession over the property and he was, therefore, not competent to transfer any part of the ancestral property without the consent of other co-parceners.

4. It was further averred that defendant No. 2 without any legal necessity sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 illegally and the said transaction is void, illegal having no effects on the rights and title of the plaintiffs and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is the result of misrepresentation, undue influence and the defendant No. 1 got the same executed fraudulently. The plaintiffs averred that the defendant No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed is threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and to raise construction thereon. When the plaintiffs requested the defendants to desist from their illegal acts and to admit the rights of the plaintiffs, they refused to do so. The plaintiffs have sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are joint owners in possession of the suit land being Joint Hindu Family co-parcenary ancestral property and the plaintiffs being the coparceners constitute a Joint Hindu Family with defendant No. 2 and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 is without any consideration and legal necessity and the same has been executed just to deprive the plaintiffs of their legal rights and further sought declaration to the effect that mutation No. 81 dated 17.12.1992 attested in favour of the defendant No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed is illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs have also sought consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction retraining the defendant No. 1 from taking forcible possession or raising any construction over the suit land and in the alternative also sought a decree for possession.

5. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement, whereas, defendant No. 2 did not appear in the Court and was proceeded ex-parte. The defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of the suit and his name was deleted. The defendant No. 1 took preliminary objections that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No. 2, she also questioned the maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, estoppel and valuation. On merits, the defendant No. 1 has