ORDER

1. The appellants / defendants having lost in both the courts below have filed the instant appeal.

2. The instant Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants / defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2013 passed by First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara (MP) in Civil Appeal No.30-A/12, whereby learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara (MP) in Civil Suit No.21-A/08.

3. The facts of the case, succinctly stated are that the respondents No. 1 to 7 / plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of the land bearing khasra No.570/7 area 0.085 hectare situated in Mouja Chhindwara, district Chhindwara to be undivided joint Hindu Family property and also for partition of 1/7th share in the land in dispute in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 7 / plaintiff separately because no partition has taken place. Claim in the suit was based on the allegation that the suit property was jointly owned by one Pandhari, Eknath and Sarubai and was not partitioned. Thereafter, the suit property devolved upon the respondents No. 1 to 7, however, name of the respondents No. 1 to 7 was not mutated in the revenue records. However, fraudulently, sale deeds dated 26.7.1991 and 23.10.1998 were got executed in favour of the respondent No.10 and the appellants, respectively. It was further alleged that the appellants are trying to take possession of the suit property and raise construction thereon.

4. On summons being issued, the appellants / defendants entered their appearance and filed written statement and broadly denied the allegations levelled in the suit. It was stated that the partition was affected in family of the respondents No. 1 to 7 under which the suit property fell into the share of Pandhari who sold his divided share to the appellants. It was further stated that the appellants are in possession of the suit property on which a house is built.

5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, decreed the plaintiffs suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009 holding that the suit property is undivided joint family property and respondents No. 1 to 7 have 1/7th share in the suit property. It was further held that the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants as well as respondent No. 10 is void and also directed for demolition of the construction and handing over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondents No. 1 to 7 / plaintiffs. Being aggrieved thereof, First appeal preferred by the appellants / defendants has been dismissed by learned First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.2.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants / defendants have preferred the instant second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants contended that learned both the courts below have committed error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The partition had already taken place. The sale deeds were rightly executed in favour of the appellants and respondent No.10. In order to substantiate his contention, has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Executive Officer v. Chandran and others, 2017 (3) MPLJ, 306, Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and others, (2008) 7 SCC 46 and Peethani Suryanarayana and another v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and others (2009) 11 SCC 308 and prayed that second appeal be allowed by setting aside the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 7 argued in support of the impugned judgments and decree passed by the both the Courts below and also contended that once a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the property in dispute is still joint and no partition has taken place,