Indu Malhotra, J. - (1.) The present dispute arises out of a Civil Suit filed by the Respondents for a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 executed by one Etwari Kumharin in favour of the Appellants was void and illegal, and a further declaration of the Respondents' title over the Suit Property.
(2.) Briefly stated, the present Civil Appeal arises in the following factual matrix :- 2.1 Radhanath Kumhar was the owner of agricultural land and a house in Mouza Nalita, P.S. Toklo (Singhbhum). Radhanath Kumhar died intestate, and his property devolved upon his legal heirs and descendants. The genealogy of Radhanath Kumhar's family is set out hereinbelow for ready reference : 2.2 The present case pertains to Plot No. 614 admeasuring 35 decimals in Khata No. 145, Mouza Nalita, P.S. Toklo (Singhbhum) (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"), which was a part of the estate of Radhanath Kumhar. 2.3 After Mangal Kumhar's death, his widow Etwari Kumharin purported to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- to the Appellants vide a registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973. 2.4 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of two sons of late Radhanath Kumhar i.e. Sonu and Anand filed Title Suit No. 14/1986 before the Court of Munsif at Chalibasa, Jharkhand against the Appellants on the ground that the Suit Property was ancestral property, and Etwari Kumharin had no right to sell it. The Plaintiffs/Respondents herein impleaded the legal heirs of Mangal Kumhar and Etwari Kumharin i.e. daughters viz. Phuljhari and Babi, and grand-children viz. Kamla and Rangu as proforma defendants. The Plaintiffs/Respondents herein inter alia prayed for a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 was void and illegal; Declaration of title of the Plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit property, and confirmation of their possession over the suit property, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession from the Appellants. Since Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were minors at the time of filing the Suit, the Suit was filed through their next friend Sibu Kumhar. Respondent No. 2 is the brother of Sibu Kumhar, and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are the nephews of Sibu Kumhar. Sibu Kumar was subsequently discharged as next friend vide Order dated 29.08.1989, after the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein attained the age of majority. 2.5 The Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.1990. It was held that the Suit Property was a part of the joint family property of the common ancestor Radhanath Kumhar. Since there was no partition of the properties owned by Radhanath Kumhar between his legal heirs, the widow of Mangal Kumhar had no right to sell a part of the ancestral property. Furthermore, Mangal Kumhar's share in the joint family property was not specified, and hence, he could not be considered to be the exclusive owner of the suit property. The Trial Court further held that upon Mangal Kumhar's death, his widow Etwari Kumharin did not acquire any exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, and was not competent to transfer the suit property in favour of the Appellants vide Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973. It was further held that Etwari Kumharin was not a necessary party in the Suit because after executing the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973, she had no interest in the suit property. It was further held that the daughters of Mangal Kumhar and Etwari Kumharin had not executed the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973, nor given any No Objection for the sale. The Trial Court passed a Decree declaring the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 to be void and illegal, and confirmed the possession of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein and the proforma defendants over the suit property. It was further directed that if the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein and the proforma defendants are found to have been dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the Suit, they shall be at liberty to recover possession after getting the decree executed though process of the court. 2.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the Appellants filed Title Appeal No. 8/1990 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Vth, West Singhbhum at Chalibasa, Jharkhand. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal vide judgment dated 19.05.2004. It was inter alia held that the Appellants had failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the suit property was self-acquired property of Mangal Kumhar. As a consequence, Etwari Kumharin had no exclusive right over the suit property, and was not entitled to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Appellants. It was further held that the legal heirs of Mangal Kumhar i.e. his daughters and grand-children, had supported the case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein. 2.7 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Appellants filed Second Appeal No. 378/2004 before the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 dismissed the Second Appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration.
(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment in the Second Appeal, the Appellants have filed the present Special Leave Petition. This Court vide Order dated 22.07.2011, granted special leave to appeal.;