K.C. Puri, J.: - Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of R.S.A.Nos.1876 of 1984, 3498 of 1985 and 18 of 1986, titled above. However, facts are being extracted from R.S.A.No.3498 of 1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhanpat Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration for declaring sale deeds dated 13 .03 .1981 and 26.05.1981 as illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and in the alternative he sought possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.717 situated in the area of village Premgarh and land measuring 6 Kanals 9 Marlas bearing Khasra No.5122/2138 situated in the area of Sutehri. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 17 were joint owners in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Sutehri and land measuring 18 Kanals situated at village Premgarh as detailed fully in the plaint. They orally partitioned the joint land on the basis of Kuras prepared by Mul Raj, retired Kanungo. A joint application was filed before the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur for giving effect to the oral partition in the revenue record. Mutation with respect to the land at village Premgarh was sanctioned on the basis of partition while that relating to village Sutehri was entered but was not decided by the Revenue Officer. By an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Revenue Officer, mutation regarding land measuring 3 Kanals 6 Marlas bearing Khasra No.717 situated at village Premgarh was not sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff though it fell to his share. Taking advantage of non-implementation of the partition in the revenue records and wrong entries showing Ishar Kaur as owner to the extent of ½ share, the impugned sale deeds were made. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has made an application to the Sub Registrar intimating him that defendant Ishar Kaur had no right to sell the land in view of partition.

3. Only defendants S.K.Nard, Ishar Kaur, Gurbux Singh and Kirpal Kaur, defendant Nos.1, 3, 18 and 19 contested the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 took some preliminary objections in their joint written statement. They further pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, so they were not entitled to the declaration. In view of other suit between Gian Singh and Ishar Kaur, the instant suit was liable to be stayed and that the suit was collusive with defendant Nos.4 to 17. On merits, they admitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 17 were joint owners of the land situated at villages Sutehri and Premgarh and further there was partition regarding land, except Khasra No. 717 situated at village Premgarh as per Kuras prepared by Mul Raj, retired Kanungo. The same was accepted by the parties and mutation was duly sanctioned and entered in the revenue record. As regards land situated at village Sutehri, it was pleaded that the partition proposed by Mul Raj was not accepted by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 17. As per proposed partition, the land comprised in Khasra No.897 situated in village Sutehri was to fall to the share of Ishar Kaur, defendant but the plaintiff and his brothers did not agree to it and remained in possession as joint owners. They also inducted Mehnga Singh as their tenant at the rate of rent of Rs.800/- per year. They filed an application for ejectment of Mehnga Singh. It is further pleaded that defendant No.3 was a co-sharer to the extent of 1/2 share of the land situated at village Sutehri and Khasra No.717 situated at village Premgarh and she had sold the same to defendant 1 for a valuable consideration.

5. Defendant Nos.18 and 19 also filed a joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They pleaded that there was no partition of the land at village Sutehri and if there was any such partition, it was never acted upon. Defendant No.3 has sold his share in Khasra No.5170/2138 and not specific pie