Defendant's right to execute a sale deed of commonly owned property is limited by previous agreements and partition rulings, affirming the importance of historical context in property transactions.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMARSRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The instant Second Appeal is preferred by legal representatives of original defendants Smt. Anjali Mukherjee and Dilip Kumar Mukherjee being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 (decree signed on 23.09.2014) passed by learned District Judge-VII, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 2/1999 whereby and whereunder the learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Title Suit No. 110/1984 dated 04.12.1998, decree signed on 18.12.1998 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Hazaribag.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the suit was filed by one Smt. Manju Sinha for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession upon the suit schedule-A property and if found dispossessed, during pendency of the suit, then a decree for recovery of the possession also by vacating the defendants from there alongwith cost of the suit and other relief(s).

The case of the plaintiff is that one Late Bisheshwar Mukherjee had two sons namely Lalit Mohan Mukheree and Krishna Mohan Mukherjee @ Kisto Mohan Mukherjee who died leaving behind two sons and the property situated at Hazaribag District and some of the properties were also situated at outside the town of the Hazaribag District. It is further alleged that Lalit Mohan Mukherjee and Kisto Mohan Mukherjee had a house constructed over Plot No. 127-128 and there was some Bakas (vacant) land also in front of the house. The above land also corresponds to Holding No. 283, Ward No. 8, New Holding No. 133, Ward No. 15. Lalit Mohan Mukherjee died leaving behind his two sons namely Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Prithvi Kumar Mukherjee who came into joint possession of the house and other properties along with their uncle Kisto Mohan Mukherjee. It is further alleged that a partition suit No. 17/1943 was instituted by Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Prithvi Kumar Mukherjee against their uncle Kisto Mohan Mukherjee for partition of household as well as landed property which was decreed by Addl. Sub Judge, Hazaribag vide final decree dated 11.11.1944 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties to the suit. Accordingly, separate Takhta in respect of half share of each party called out and allotted. The suit land of this case falls into share of Kisto Mohan Mukherjee who died leaving behind his sons Ajit Kumar Mukherjee and Anil Kumar Mukherjee who came over the possession of the property left by their father but they also separated and started dealing with the property exclusively left by their father. Similarly, Arun Kumar Mukherjee and his sons also started dealing with the properties allotted to their share in the partition. It is further alleged that after death of Ajit Kumar Mukherjee in the year 1955, his wife defendant No. 1 namely Anjali Mukherjee inherited the same property left by her husband and also sold some portion of the property in favour of sons of Ghanshyam Gope. The defendant No. 1 also performed marriage of her two daughters namely Madhu Mita and Madhu Chanda out of family fund who were residing at their respective matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff and her husband several times for sale of the suit land as she was in need of money for treatment of her elder daughter Madhu Mita which the plaintiff agreed to purchase, accordingly, sale deed was executed and registered on 12.04.1983 by the defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. After purchase of the suit schedule-A property, the plaintiff applied