JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge of Hardoi, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. A short pedigree, which is not disputed, may be set out below to explain the facts of the case:

TABLE

2. The short facts are that Jaskaran Singh, the ancestor of the parties, owned and possessed a five biswa pukhtadari share in village Benddar Khurd in tahsil Sandila, district Hardoi. The plaintiffs alleged that this property was the joint ancestral property of Jaskaran Singh and his two sons, Devendra Kumar and Dujendra Kumar, defendants 1 and 2, respectively, that Jaskaran Singh died while his sons were minors and that the minors were brought up by their mother, Mt. Chhoti Kuar, defendant 4, who was also their certificated guardian. Devendra Kumar was first married to Mt. Brij Rani, defendant 8, from whom he had a daughter Mt. Bitiya, aged four years. After that he married Mt. Kalawati, plaintiff 2, from whom Bijai Kumar, plaintiff 1, was born. Bijai Kumar was born on 27th August 1987, in village Kazipur Kachh in the district of Unao in the house of his maternal grandfather. It was stated in the plaint that Devendra Kumar got into bad society and commenced a life of gambling, drinking and prostitution in the company of Ram Bharosey Singh defendant 5, that the latter was responsible for Devendra Kumar turning against his two wives with the result that the maternal uncle of Bijai Kumar took Kalawati to his own house in Kazipur Kachh, where he was born. Ram Bharosey Singh is alleged to have got Devendra Kumar arrested on account of the arrears of land revenue to the extent of Rs. 400 but got him ultimately released. Ram Bharosey Singh obtained a sale deed in his favour on llth'September 1987, from Devendra Kumar of his half share of the pukhtadari haqiat, which is entered at No. 1 in list A attached to the plaint for a sum of Rs. 8000. It may be mentioned that the five biswa share in this pukhtadari haqiat owned by Jaskaran Singh amounted to four annas so that the sale deed in favour of Ram Bharosey Singh was in respect of two annas owned by Devendra Kumar.

3. The plaintiffs' case was that this deed was obtained by the exercise of undue influence and fraud on, the part of Ram Bharosey Singh and was got registered with the collusion of the Sub-Registrar, that the consideration of the deed was fictitious except to the extent of Rs. 450 which was actually paid for payment of Government revenue, and that the deed was void and inoperative. The plaintiffs alleged in" the plaint that they asked for a partition of their share of the property but the defendants having paid no heed to their demand, the plaintiffs were obliged to file a suit for partition. The first relief claimed in the plaint was that after making a declaration to the effect that the deed dated 11th September 1937 was illegal and void a decree in respect of the partition of the property given in list A, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants and the one-fourth share of Bijai Kumar and one-eighth share of Mt. Kalawati be separated. The second relief sought was that a declaration be made that the deed dated llth September 1937 in favour of Ram Bharosey Singh was absolutely illegal and void and was not binding upon the plaintiffs, whose share was not liable for payment of the encumbrances. In addition to the pukhtadari haqiat mentioned above,; the property sought to be partitioned was a residential house, some household effects and mortgagee rights in respect of six mortgage deeds. The suit was filed on 22nd September 1987 that is to say, only 11 days after the execution of the sale deed.

4. Devendra Kumar as defendant 1 filed a written statement admitting the claim but took no part in the subsequent proceedings. Dujendra Kumar, defendant 2, and Mt. Chhoti Kuar, defendant 4, filed a joint written statement. Both these defendants expressed their wish to have their legal shares separated from the ancestra