JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.03.03.2020 passed in Interlocutory Application No.425 of 2019 in Original Suit No.113 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar.

2. The appellants herein are defendant nos.3 to 5 and 7 and 8.

3. The respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs and the respondent no.3 /Defendant no.1 are children of Seetya.

4. Late Sakru is the father of Seetya. Seetya had 6 brothers, one of whom is Late Lachiram. The respondent no.4/Defendant no.2 is the wife of Lachiram and appellants/Defendant nos. 3 to 5, 7 and 8 and the respondent no.5/Defendant no.6 are the sons of Lachiram and respondent no.4.

5. The respondents / plaintiffs filed the said suit for preliminary decree declaring that they are entitled to 2/3rd equal undivided share of the suit schedule property and for partition of the same by metes and bounds and for separate possession. They have also sought a declaration that Ex.P.1 = Ex.R.2 a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.11324 of 2006 dt.13.10.2006 under which the suit schedule property consisting of Acs.3.2 gts. in various survey numbers situate in Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was sold by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4, is null and void and not binding on them.

The case of the respondent no.s 1 and 2 /plaintiffs

6. It is the contention of respondent nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs in the above suit that Sakru owned Acs.57.16 gts. in various survey numbers situate in Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; on the death of Sakru, there was a partition among the sons of Sakru and an extent of Acs.8.2 gts. fell to the share of Seetya.

7. It is the further contention of respondent nos.1 and 2 that in the month of April, 2019 they approached respondent no.3 for partition of the suit schedule of Acs.8.2 gts., but the respondent no.3 was dragging on the matter, and so they checked with the Sub-Registrar and Revenue Department and came to know about the execution of Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dt.13.10.2006 by the respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.4.

8. The respondent nos.1 and 2 further contended that that they inherited the suit schedule property under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but the appellants and respondent nos.4 and 5 are in illegal possession of the suit schedule property and are contemplating to dispose of the property to third parties.

9. They contended that respondent no.3 had no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.4 and such a sale deed does not confer any rights on the respondent no.4 because the respondent no.3 had no exclusive right, title or interest over the property which is an undivided, coparcenery and joint family property inherited jointly by him with respondent nos.1 and 2. So he cannot dispose of the same without the consent of respondent nos.1 and 2.

10. Therefore they contended that the sale deed executed by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.4 is null and void and not binding on respondent nos.1 and 2 and is non est in law.

11. The respondent no.3 remained ex parte.

12. The respondent no.4/defendant no.2 died pending suit.

The stand of the appellants /defendant no.s 3,4,5,7 and 8 in the suit

13. Written Statement was filed by the appellants and respondent no.4 admitting that respondent nos.1 and 2 and respondent no.3 are brothers and sisters, and are children of Seetya.

14. They also admitted that Late Sakru owned Acs.57.2 gts., that he had seven sons including Seetya (father of respondent nos.1 to 3), and that after the death of Sakru, all his 7 sons partitioned the property among themselves and demarcated and took share of their land, but they denied that each son of Late Sakru got Acs.8.2 gts. to their share.

15. They also admitted that appellants and respondent no.4 are legal heirs of Late Lachiram.

16. They denied that respondent nos.1 and 2 and respondent no.3 were in joint possession of the suit schedule property. According