The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the validity of a widow's second marriage, succession of property, and the rights of the widow under the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, and Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

This appeal under Section 96, CPC has been filed by 8th and 9th defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-7-1995 passed by learned 3rd additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 90-A/1991 thereby partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs respondents, namely, Jeewanlal, Shaligram and Bhagwatibai have also filed cross-objections praying to decree the suit in toto. During the pendency of the suit second and third plaintiffs (respondents 2 and 3) have died. The respondents 2(a) to (d) are the L. Rs. of second respondent and they were brought on record on 30-9-2011 while the name of third respondent-plaintiff was deleted from the cause title as per order dated 15-4-2009.

3. A suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owner of the entire suit house, the description whereof has been given in para 3 of the plaint and further that defendants 1 to 7 are not having any right, title and interest in the suit house therefore, the sale-deed dated 22-12-1989 executed by them in favour of defendants 8 and 9 (appellants herein) is ineffective and by virtue of the said deed the defendants 8 and 9 did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs also claimed possession of the suit house from the defendants and they further sought a decree of permanent injunction that after delivering possession to the plaintiffs they shall not interfere in their possession.

4. Instead of writing the pleadings of the parties pleaded in the plaint and written-statement, since during the course of arguments learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants have agreed and admitted the family tree as well as the execution of certain documents which are being narrated hereinafter in this para, therefore, the pleadings of the parties are not being written here. The family tree which has been admitted by learned counsel for both the parties is mentioned and described as under :

(Family tree Diagram is omitted...ed)

5. During the course of argument this has also been admitted by learned counsel for the parties that vide registered sale-deed dated 22-9-1934 (Ex. P-1) one Bhagwandas sold the entire suit house to Lalaram s/o Khoobchand and Narbada Prasad s/o Chhotelal Tiwari and they became joint owner of the entire suit house having half share each. This is also admitted to learned counsel for the parties that on 2-7-1940 (Ex. P2C) Lalaram sold half portion (Northern side) to Bhari Dullaiya and that Northern portion was sold vide registered sale-deed dated 22-12-1989 by defendants 1 to 7 to defendants 8 and 9 (the appellants here in this appeal). The learned Trial Court decreed the suit partly holding that :

(i) The plaintiffs No.1 and 3 namely, Jeevanlal and Bhagwati Bai respectively are the owners of 1/3 portion each of the ½ portion of the Northern side of the suit house;

(ii) remaining ½ portion of the Northern side of the suit house is owned and possessed by defendants 1 to 7;

(iii) the Southern portion of the suit house is owned and possessed by defendants 1 to 7;

(iv) the sale-deed dated 22-12-1989 executed by the defendants 1 to 7 showing the owner of the entire suit property in favour of defendants 8 and 9 is declared to be illegal and contrary to the law;

(v) the defendants 8 and 9 did not acquire the title of entire house on the basis of sale- deed dated 22-12-1989;

(vi) because partition has not taken place between plaintiffs and defendants therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitle for a decree of possession and declaration and the suit of plaintiffs is hereby dismissed in this regard;

(vii) the plaintiffs are not entitled to decree of injunction;

(viii) the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 1,500/-, if precertified;

(ix) The plaint map shall be the part of the decree.

6. The contention of Shri Ravish Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants 8 and 9 who are the transferee pendente lite of def