A Hindu father has unique powers under Hindu Law to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity, which cannot be questioned by non-signatory heirs.

1. This appeal is preferred under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment / decree dated 21-3-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Kabeerdham (CG) in Civil Suit No. 6 - A / 2003 wherein the said court declared sale deed void executed by late Tokhan in favour of appellant Janak Ram as per Ex.D / 3 and sale deed executed in favour of respondents Shri Ram, Shiv Kumar and late Badhri as per Ex.D / 34 and subsequent sale deed executed by Janak Ram in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and in favour of Shri Ram, Shiv Kumar and late Badhri and declared title of respondent No.1 Ganesh Ram and respondent No.2 Anju and also granted decree of injunction.

2. Respondent No.1 / plaintiff is son of Tokhan and respondent No.2 is also son of Tokhan. Respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration / permanent injunction and for declaring sale deed void regrading land bearing Khasra No. 53/01 rakba 0.26 acres, Khasra No.511/2 area 1.02 acres, Khasra No. 654/1 area 0.09 acres, 0.40 acres of the eastern portion of Khasra No. 659, Khasra No. 858/1, rakba 0.34 acres,0.35 acres of Khasra No.659 and Khasra No. 659/1 rakba 0.40 acres situated at village Dhobghatti, Patwari Halka No. 13, Tahsil and Revenue Circle Pandariya, District Kabeerdham and executed by his father Tokhan as per Exs. D / 3 and D / 34 as mentioned above. The suit was filed on the ground that Tokhan who is father of respondent No.1 was taken to the house of Janak Ram on 16-5-1995 where Tokhan resided for about 15 days and between this time on 24-5-1995 a sale deed got executed. Said Tokhan did not receive any consideration for the suit property. The land in question is co - parcenery property which is not partitioned and respondent No.1 and his brother Anju - respondent No.2 are having interest over the property that is why suit was filed. As per the appellants, the property in question was acquired by Tokhan in partition and sale deed was executed for legal necessity. After hearing of both sides, the trial court decreed the suit as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under.
i) Respondent No.1 Ganesh Ram who is not being the party to the sale deed cannot question the sale deed on the ground that no consideration was paid to Tokhan.
ii) It is not mentioned as to what was the total ancestral property and what was the share of respondent No.1 Ganesh Ram in the said property.
iii) As the property is sold for legal necessity by Karta of the family namely Tokhan, therefore, same cannot be questioned by his sons respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the finding of the trial court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of court below including the judgment and decree.

6. The first question for consideration of this court is whether sale deed executed by Tokhan is legally sound. The claim of respondent No.1 is based on the averment that property in question is ancestral property. It is not mentioned in the plaint the total land and other property which was ancestral property i.e., property of the father of Tokhan namely Ram Prasad which was succeeded by co - parceners namely Ganesh Ram, respondent No.1 and Anju, respondent No.2 and their father Tokhan. Though suit was filed on the ground that no partition took place between co - parceners, but total property is not mentioned in the plaint and it is also not mentioned the limit of share of respondent No.1 which ought to have