A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness. A claim of joint family property is negated when the party admits to separate cultivation and accepts the alienation of shares by other family members, indicating an oral partition.

ORDER :

Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2024 in RCSA-500003A/2017 and affirmed in the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2025 by appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1A/2025.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition essentially against respondents/defendants No. 1 and 2. However, as she claimed that respondents No. 2 to 28 are the joint owners of the suit property which is an HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) property, they are also necessary parties. Thus, they were impleaded as defendants in the suit.

3. It was averred in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff as well as the respondent/defendants are members of a joint Hindu family. The defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2. The suit property is situated at village Barapatthar, Tehsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain admeasuring 10.477. The suit property is an agricultural land.

4. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendants No. 1 and 2 in connivance with officials of sub-registrar office have got sale deed dated 11.08.2016 executed in favour of defendant No.1 which is without any sale consideration and illegal whereby out of the total joint Hindu family property, an area of 0.380 hectare has been sold by Ramibai to defendant No. 1 pursuant to which an order of mutation was passed on 22.09.2016 and a new Survey No. 133/2/Min-10 for an area of 0.380 hectare in the name of defendant No. 1 has been recorded. It has further been averred in the plaint that said Ramibai was an old aged, infirm and ill person who did not have proper eye-sight. The sale was effected without there being any partition of the joint property. Thus, the same is void as compared to other members of the HUF who have equal right on each and every property of the joint Hindu family. In view of the above facts, it was averred that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2/2/6 share in the suit property and is also entitled to get partition done for her share to the said extent by metes and bounds. Thus, she prayed for declaration of sale deed dated 11.08.2016 null & void, for permanent injunction and for partition by metes & bounds.

5. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement whereby it was stated that defendant No. 1 is the bonafide purchaser of the agricultural land in question and her name has duly been mutated in the revenue records for the land purchased by her. It was further averred that in fact plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 29 are in connivance and have filed the suit malafidely by concealing material facts. It was stated that the suit property was purchased by defendant No. 1 from Ramibai @ Ramubai w/o Devji Mali (Ramibai was the mother of plaintiff). It was further averred in the written statement that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property and cultivating the said land.

6. The defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 filed their separate written statement thereby admitting all the averments of the plaint.

7. Based on respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed as many as 7 issues and all of them were decided against the plaintiff. The trial Court in para 13 discussed the evidence given by the plaintiff as PW-1. The trial Court specifically recorded that the plaintiff (PW-1) herself stated in her deposition that since last 40 years, all the members of the family are working separately and even cultivating their lands separately. It is also recorded by the trial Court in the same para that in her cross-examination, plaintiff has admitted in para 13 that defendant No. 6 Chunnilal who is the elder brother is even doing his business of selling flowers and also that the brothers have never cultivated their lands jointly. One more significant finding has been recorded by the trial Court in para 14 that defendant No. 2 was cultivating the disputed land and was sowing the