Mudgal, J. -- 1. By this order the review petitions bearing

No.202 of 2012 and 446 of 2013 arising out of the order dated 12.3.2012 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 493 of 2007 are being disposed of simultaneously.

2. The Review petition No.202 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Shilpa Suryavanshi widow of the deceased appellant Shivajirao Suryavanshi who filed a Civil Suit No.91-A of 2004 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of the decree dated 29.7.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.20A of 1983 being null and void in respect of House No.41/364 situated at Shinde Ki Goth, Huzrat Road, Lashker, Gwalior. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.11.2006 by the Court of VIIIth Civil Judge Class 1, Gwalior against which, the plaintiff filed First Appeal No.32A of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.5.2007 by the Court of Vith Additional District Judge, Gwalior against which, Second Appeal No.493 of 2007 was filed by plaintiff Shivaji Rao who died during pendency of the appeal. His wife Shilpa Suryavanshi was substituted as his legal representative. The said appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 12.3.2012.

3. The R.P.No.446 of 2013 has been filed by the defendants No.5 to 9 for correction in the impugned order in respect of the date of the sale deed wrongly indicated as 1.2.1963 instead of 9.9.1963.

4. The facts of the case in brief of the plaint are that vide registered sale deed dated 15.1.1948 Ex.P/1 the disputed house was purchased by Vaman Rao who was father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 Babu Rao. After death of Vamanrao, his legal heirs i.e. plaintiff Shivaji Rao, defendant No.1 Babu Rao both being sons, sister and widow became co-owners of the said house. However, the defendant No.1 Babu Rao unauthorizedly contracted to sell the disputed house vide agreement dated 18.4.1980 to Smt. Pushplata alias Pushpa Devi whereas, the plaintiff has claimed preferential right to purchase the property as the said house is the property of joint Hindu family and he has also averred that he is a co-owner of the said house. A decree for performance of the said contract was passed in favour of Smt. Pushplata in Civil Suit No.20A of 1983 by the Court of Special Judge Additional District Judge. The said decree is not binding on the plaintiff as he was not party to the suit. The defendants No.5 to 9 are the legal heirs of Smt. Pushplata. They have no right to get the decree executed against the plaintiff. Further, the defendants No.1 to 5 have no right to get possession of the suit house on the basis of the decree passed in their favour. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of the decree being null and void.

5. The defendants No.5 to 9 filed written statement stating that they are entitled to get the decree executed in their favour of the disputed house. Within the knowledge of plaintiff, the sale deed dated 9.9.1963 Ex.D/1 regarding the part of this house was executed by Babu Rao in favour of Nandlal Haswani and on 1.2.1963 in favour of Gopal Swaroop Pathak in the presence of the plaintiff who signed the document as a witness.

6. On the basis of the sale-deed, names of the purchasers have been recorded in the revenue papers and so the plaintiff has no right to the said house. Besides it, the decree dated 29.7.2002 is binding on the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is residing in the disputed house with the permission of the Babu Rao, but since the partition has already taken place in between the plaintiff and Babu Rao, hence, the plaintiff has no share in the suit house.

7. The learned trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, held that the plaintiff was not coowner of the house and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 7.11.2006. The findings of learned trial Court were affirmed by learned lower appellate Court as stated earlier.

8. The learned counsel Shri D.D.Bansal s