IMPORTANT POINT
Purchaser cannot have better title than what his vender had.

Prakash Gupta, J.—The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant-appellants against impugned judgment and decree dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Tonk in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5/1992, whereby learned first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Civil suit No. 187/81 (277/1984) decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs filed for cancellation of sale-deed and for possession of the disputed property.

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff Ram Narayan and Mst. Dhakha and Mst. Rampyari (respondent Nos. 6 and 7 respectively) filed a civil suit in the court of learned Additional Munsif, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 8.6.1971, allegedly executed by Ladu in favour of the defendants Kana and Moolia for a consideration of Rs.2,000/-. The plaintiffs also prayed for restoration of their possession over the land comprising Khasra No.1128 and 1129 (1391) measuring 14 Bighas and 10 Biswas. In the plaint, the plaintiff respondents stated that Ladu was the father of Ram Narayan, who died in 1977 and he, along with other respondents, being coparceners has half a share in the above land. The said land was purchased by Rewata, the father of Ladu who without any legal necessity sold the land to the defendants and because of this, the sale of the land was not binding on them and the same was ineffective. It was mentioned by the plaintiffs that the fact of the sale-deed came to their knowledge on 17.4.1980 when the mutation of the land was transferred in the name of the defendants. The plaintiff prayed that the alleged sale deed dated 8.6.1971 be cancelled and possession of the land in dispute be directed to be restored to them.

3. The defendant-appellants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was mentioned that the suit property was sold to them by Ladu for the requirement of the family, which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned that registration of the sale-deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar operates as a notice to them under the law. The plaintiffs have neither disclosed the fact of ownership of their grand-father nor the fact of their being coparceners of the same. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. A specific plea of limitation was also raised.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following six issues:-

[Matter In Other Language]

5. To prove their case, plaintiff Ram Narayan was examined himself as (PW-1) and also got examined (PW-2)-Sheodan, (PW-3)-Heera. On behalf of the defendants (DW-1)-Kana, (DW-2)-Dhanna and (DW-3)-Kesra were examined. Both the sides got some documents exhibited in their favour.

6. The learned trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide judgment dated 6.12.1991 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents cancelling the sale-deed dated 8.6.1971 executed by Ladu in favour of the defendant appellants and holding the plaintiff-respondents entitled to possession of the disputed land.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendant appellants filed civil regular first appeal before the learned first appellate court.

8. The learned first appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.8.1999 partly allowed the appeal holding that Ladu without necessity of the family was not entitled to sell the entire land in favour of the defendant appellants and the sale was held to be illegal. However, the learned first appellate court held the defendant-appellants entitled to get possession over the land which comes in the share of Ladu after