Vishnudeo Narayan, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the defendants-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1988 and 3.5.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 34 of 1980/13 of 1981 by Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, Sub-Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree dated 30.1.1980 and 9.2.1980 respectively passed by Munsif. Gumla in Title Suit No, 46 of 1973 was reversed.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed aforementioned suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 11.4.1972. 4.7.1972 and 7.11.1973 executed by defendant No. 4, Lachman Ahir (who died during the pendency of the suit) in favour of defendant Ghuili Gope along with Pusa Gope @ Tupha Ahir in respect of Schedule A and B land as well as in favour of defendant Gandura Sahu in respect of Schedule C land of khata No. 28 situate in village Golmer, P.S. Palkot, District Ranchi (now Gumla) are void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs-respondents. The case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is that the land of khata No. 28 situate in village Golmer. P.S. Palkot, District Ranchi (now Gumla) stands jointly recorded in the record of rights in the name of Bhukhan Ahir, Sukhnath Ahir, Charku Ahir and Lachman Ahir all sons of Dalua Ahir having equal shares and they were the members of the joint Hindu Mitakshara family and no metes and bounds partition has ever taken place between them. Bhukhan Ahir aforesaid died in the state of jointness leaving behind his three sons namely, Deoman Ahir, Johan Ahir and Mohan Ahir. The said Deoman Ahir also died issueless in the state of jointness, Johan Ahir also died in the jointness leaving behind his three sons, namely, Dondo Ahir, Mondo Ahir and Baneshwar Ahir. Sukhnath Ahir and Charku Ahir also died during the pendency of the suit in the state of jointness and their heirs are also on the record as plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 Lachman Ahir who is issueless kept Kelwa Ahirin his house and started living with her for the last four years after the death of his lawfully wedded wife which was protested to by these plaintiffs causing annoyance to him. The said Kelwa Ahirin had two sons, defendant No. 1 Pusa Ahir (since dead) and defendant No. 2 Ghuili Ahir born of her former husbands. Lachman Ahir aforesaid under pressure, coercion and undue influence of Kelwa Ahirin and her two sons executed sale deeds dated 11.4.1972 and 4.7.1972 in favour of defendant No. 1 Pusa Ahir and defendant No. 2 Ghuili Ahir in respect of the land of Schedule A and B of the plaint and also executed the sale deed dated 7.11.1973 in favour of defendant No. 3, Gandura Sao in respect of Schedule "C" land of the plaint. The said Lachman Ahir executed a deed of cancellation dated 3.5.1972 cancelling, the sale deed dated 11.4.1972 aforesaid. Their case further is that Lachman Ahir has no right to sell joint family lands without consent of other co-sharers and all the sale deeds aforesaid executed by Lachman Ahir is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs who are still in joint possession of the suit properties.

3. The case of the defendants-appellants is that there has been metes and bounds partition of the joint family land between the four sons of Daula Ahir long ago and they are in separate and exclusive possession of the land allotted to each of them in the said partition and they are, accordingly, dealing with the properties separately as per their convenience and the defendants-appellants by virtue of the sale deeds executed by Lachman Ahir are in exclusive possession of the suit properties and defendants Ghuili Ahir and Pusa Ahir stand mutated in respect thereof and they are paying rent. Their case further is that Lachman Ahir has solemnized his marriage in the sagai form with Kelwa Ahirin about 18 years ago and since then they are living as husband and wife.

4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication in the case :--

(i) Is the su