By the Court.—Heard Sri Dhruva Narayana, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Namit Srivasava, Advocate, for appellants; and, Sri Anuj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, for respondents.

2. These two appeals filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure have arisen from judgment dated 9.10.2003 and decree dated 23.10.2003 passed by Sri N.A. Zaidi, Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad dismissing Original Suit No. 696 of 1991 instituted by Laxmi Saran Agarwal etc. and simultaneously decreeing Original Suit No. 975 of 1991 instituted by Sri Guru Saran Agarwal, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals.

3. Since these appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 9.10.2003, therefore, we have heard both together and the same are being decided by this common judgment.

4. Original Suit No. 696 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “First Suit”) was instituted by three brothers, Laxmi Saran Agarwal, Vipin Saran Agarwal and Sudhir Saran Agarwal, sons of Sri Amar Nath Agarwal, against their fourth brother Guru Saran Agarwal, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1. In the aforesaid suit, father Amar Nath Agarwal and fifth brother Shiv Saran Agarwal, were also impleaded as defendants No. 2 and 3 but as formal defendants.

5. The suit was instituted vide Plaint dated 7.8.1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad. The three plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “appellants”) sought a declaration that House No. B-680, Lajpat Nagar, Moradabad, registered and transferred by sale by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “Housing Board”) in the name of defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent-1”) be declared a joint family property, that he is not the sole owner thereof but appellants and Respondent-1 all are joint owners of the said property, and appellants are in possession of the said house in that capacity. Appellants further sought a decree of permanent injunction, restraining respondents 1 and 2 from transferring aforesaid property, themselves or through their agent or servant, in any manner, and not to execute any deed in this regard. Further a decree of permanent injunction was prayed against Respondent-1 that he should not interfere through himself, agent or servant etc. in appellants’ possession of house in dispute.

6. Plaint case set up by appellants is that appellants and respondents constitute a Joint Hindu Family/Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as “HUF”) in which they are members and defendant No. 2, i.e., Amar Nath Agarwal is Karta thereof. In the year 1971 plaintiffs and defendants including defendant No. 2 were residing in a tenanted house which was in Mohalla Katra Banshidhar, Moradabad. At the end of 1971, there arose some dispute between parties of the suit and landlord of tenanted house, on account whereof, defendant No. 2, for the benefit of HUF, decided to purchase a residential house. Co-incidentally Housing Board advertised a residential scheme for allotment of residential houses and invited applications. Appellants’ grandfather Late Suraj Mal Agarwal was owner of a residential house. After his death, defendant No. 2, in consultation with all his sons and daughters including the appellants and Respondent-1, sold out that house for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- whereof defendant No. 2 received his share as Rs. 2800/-. The share of appellants and Respondent-1 was equal in the aforesaid consideration. Defendant No. 2 deposited Rs. 3,000/-, i.e., Rs. 2800/- which he received as share in consideration of the sold out house and Rs. 200/- he had taken from his wife, Smt. Chunni Devi, i.e. mother of appellants out of her Streedhan, with the Housing Board, for allotment of a Low Income House for benefit of all the members of HUF. Since at that time, defendant No. 2 was a tenant in a residential house and one residential house was registered in the record of Nagar Palika, in his name, therefore, defendant No. 2 gave the na