1. These two appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated:23.07.2005 in O.S.No.1/1995 and 31/1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. R.A.No. 118/2005 was filed in the court of District Judge, Haveri. By virtue of order passed by this Court in C.P.28/2006, R.A.No. 118/2005 was withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Haveri for being decided along with R.F.A.No. 1275/2005. R.A. No. 118/2005 has been re - numbered in this court as RFA No. 100106/2017.

2. The appellants in R.F.A.No. 1275/2005 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1/1995. The appellants in RFA No. 100106/2017 are defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 31/1995. The case pleaded by the parties before the Trial Court has been summarized as below.

3. The subject - matter of the suit O.S.No.1/1995 is 01.26 acres of land out of 4.37 acres in Re - survey No. 47/2 / A+B+C+D:1 of Purat - keri village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District (referred to as suit property). In O.S.No.31/1995, the properties involved are the said agricultural land and a house property described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.

4. O.S. No. 1/1995 was filed for the reliefs of declaration that sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant does not bind plaintiffs' interest in the suit property and that they can exercise right of pre - emption over the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit property.

5. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 of this suit and, one Dharanendrappa, the husband of 2nd defendant, are the sons of one Bharmappa Jainar and Parvatavva, the 3rd plaintiff. The 3rd defendant Vedavati is the daughter of 2nd defendant Chandramma. The 1st defendant Basavanneppa is a purchaser of the suit property.

6. All the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant's husband, Dharanendrappa, were the members of Hindu Joint Family. Dharanendrappa died in the year 1990. After his death, the 3rd plaintiff being the mother, the 2nd defendant being his wife, and 3rd defendant being the daughter of the deceased Dharanendrappa succeeded to his 1/4th share in the suit property as they were the nearest legal heirs. The suit property had not been partitioned. Each of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 has 1/4th share in the suit property. The 3rd plaintiff being mother, has 1/3rd share in 1/4th share of deceased Dharanendrappa and therefore, the total share that she gets is 4/12 i.e. 1/3rd.

7. After demise of Dharanendrappa, the 2nd and 3rd defendants were living in joint family for some time. Some time later, the 2nd defendant went to her maternal home at Kappaduru, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District. Even though, the name of the 2nd defendant had been entered in the revenue records after the demise of Dharanendrappa, the right of the 3rd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant in the suit property had not been affected. In fact, the 1st plaintiff being the manager was managing the entire joint family affairs. Since 2nd defendant was an innocent woman, the 1st defendant was able to get executed a sale deed from her in respect of suit property. The sale deed thus obtained by the 1st defendant from the 2nd defendant was illegal and a fraudulent transaction. There was no legal necessity for the 2nd defendant to sell the suit property. In fact, the 2nd defendant had no right to sell 01.26 acres of land. The 3rd defendant was a minor and therefore the 2nd defendant could not have sold the interest of the 3rd defendant without taking the permission of the Court. The actual market value at the time was Rs.60,000/- per acre but the land was sold for just Rs.75,000/-.

8. The purchaser i.e. the 1st defendant is not the member of the joint family. He is totally a stranger. Even if he had purchased, he has to file a suit for general partition and till then he cannot interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. But the 1st defendant, after purchasing the suit property, got the revenue records mutated to his na