The court upheld the validity of the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the deceased, finding no evidence of a family partition that would invalidate their right to sell the property.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by defendant nos. 6 and 7 of the suit against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 (decree signed on 13.03.2023) passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandil in Title Suit No. 13 of 2014 whereby the suit has been partly decreed and the registered sale-deed no. 687 dated 06.03.2012 executed by defendant no. 5 (the power of attorney holder of defendant nos. 1 to 4- the legal heirs of late Manikant G. Thakkar ) in favour of the defendant nos. 6 and 7 has been set- aside. The other sale deed no. 4324 dated 20.10.2012 executed by the defendant no.8 in favour of the Defendant no.9 was held to be valid.

2. The appellants were the defendant nos. 6 and 7 in the Title Suit No. 13 of 2014. The present respondent nos. 1 to 4 were the plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff no.1 was the mother of the plaintiff no. 2 to 5 and her name was deleted on account of her death. The appellants are only concerned with registered sale-deed no. 687 dated06.03.2012 executed by defendant no.5 being the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 1 to 4 in favour of the defendant nos. 6 and 7 (the appellants).

3. Case of the plaintiffs

I. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over half portion of the schedule-A land and they also prayed for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs had also prayed for declaration of sale-deed no. 687 dated 06.03.2012 and sale deed no. 4324 dated 20.10.2012 as null and void.

II. The suit land was measuring 17.94 acres situated at mouza Kandarbera, P.S. Chandil and described in schedule-A to the plaint. The plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and 8 and also the proforma defendant nos. 10, 11 and 12 are Hindus and in matters of inheritance and succession, they are guided by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 having common ancestor namely, Govindji B. Thakkar who died leaving behind his four sons Manikant G. Thakkar, Mukundlal G. Thakkar, Indulal G. Thakkar and Chandrakant G. Thakkar. Said Govindji B. Thakkar acquired several immovable properties in the town of Jamshedpur and after his death his four sons jointly inherited the same.

III. On 26.05.1959, Manikant G. Thakkar, being karta of the joint Hindu family, purchased the Schedule-A land along with the defendant no. 8 namely, Hari Narayan Parikh in equal share by a registered sale- deed from its previous owner which was also recorded in the name of Manikant G. Thakkar and Hari Narayan Parikh in the last Revisional Survey.

IV. Manikant G. Thakkar and his other three brothers jointly possessed the half portion of the schedule-A land by mutual arrangement with Hari Narayan Parikh although there was no partition by metes and bounds.

V. After death of Manikant G. Thakkar in the year 1972, there was family partition of joint family properties among the 3 brothers of Manikant G. Thakkar and the widow, sons and daughters of Manikant G. Thakkar. In the said family partition, half portion of the schedule-A land was allotted in the share of the father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 namely, Indulal G. Thakkar and after his death, the plaintiffs came in possession of the same.

VI. Earlier, a title suit being Title Suit No. 42 of 1982 was filed by the defendant no. 8 - Hari Narayan Parikh before the Court of Sub- ordinate Judge claiming the entire schedule-A land. It was his case in the said title suit that the co-purchaser Manikant G. Thakkar did not pay the consideration amount of the land and therefore, he had relinquished his share in favour of the defendant no. 8. The said suit was instituted against the heirs of Manikant G. Thakkar and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 30.05.1992 in favour of the plaintiff of the said title suit i.e. Hari Narayan Parikh. The decree passed in the said title suit was challenged by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 of the said suit in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1992 before the District Judge, West