The sale of a specific portion of the land described by particular Khasra number by a co-sharer out of the joint Khewat shall be the sale of the share out of the joint land.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mewat, whereby the appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nuh, has been dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction on the averments that he is owner in possession of the agriculture land comprised of Khewat/Khatoni No. 56/65, Rect. No. 5, Killa No.6 (8-0), 15(2-16), Rect. No. 6, Killa No. 9/2 (6-16) total measuring 17 Kanals 12 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Chundhika, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat fully detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint. It is further pleaded that the suit land along with other land was joint between the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and their other brothers. The same was mutually partitioned about 30 years back. As a result of the said partition, the separate Khewat/Khatoni numbers were allotted to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and their brothers. The suit land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, he is exclusive owner in possession of the aforesaid land. The said partition was duly mutated in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that defendant no.1 had no concern with the suit land in any manner. But, he had illegally and unlawfully sold 80/427 share out of the land bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 56/65-67, Rect. No. 5, Killa No.6 (8-0), 15(2-16), Rect. no. 6, Killa No. 10(8-0), 11(2-11), total measuring 21 Kanals 7 Marlas to defendants no. 2 and 3 vide impugned sale deed dated 18.06.2009. In the said sale deed, defendant no. 1 had illegally and unlawfully made the wrong recitals regarding delivery of possession of the aforesaid land to defendants no.2 and 3. Whereas, he has no concern with the Killa Nos. 6 and 15 which had fallen to the share of plaintiff in the mutual partition which took place 30 years back. Hence the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 18.06.2009 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 is wrong, illegal, null and void, ineffective, inoperative and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside. He also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants no.1 and defendants no.2 and 3 by filing the separate written statements. Defendant no.1 contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that plaintiff and defendants are co-owners and co-sharers and are in joint possession of the suit land and the same was neither partitioned either mutually or by meets and bounds between all the co-sharers. The story projected by the plaintiff is false. He further pleaded that he has rightly and correctly sold his share to defendants no.2 and 3. He denied that Killa Nos. 6 and 15 had fallen to the share of plaintiff as alleged. With these pleas, he pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendants no. 2 and 3 also contested the suit on the similar lines.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land by setting aside the sale deed bearing vasika no. 431 dated 18.06.2009? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.

6. On appreciation of the evidence recorded and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the appellant- plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013. The plaintiff was held to be joint owner in exclusive possession of the suit property. Consequently, defendants no