Siddharth, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1999 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Deoria in Civil Appeal No.267 of 1988 and the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1988 passed by the Munsiff, Kasia, Deoria in Original Suit No.683 of 1985, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff's case was that he has instituted the suit against the defendants praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1, Gopinath, not to dispose of the disputed property in favour of any one and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant no.3, Smt. Radhika, during the pendency of suit in respect of his property. It was further stated that plaintiff and defendant no.2 are real brothers and sons of defendant no.1. Defendant no.3 is the wife of defendant no.2. The disputed property is agricultural land and his ancestral property inherited from his father, defendant no.1 and his grand-father. He is member of Hindu coparcenary family and has acquired interest in the suit property by birth and the defendant no.1 has no right to transfer the same.
(3.) Defendants filed the written statement stating that the property in dispute has come in the hand of defendant no.1 from his ancestors but some of the properties are self acquired. After the death of Janki, Bansdeo and Rajdeo separated from the family and therefore, the ancestral property was divided between two brothers and rule of coparcenary ultimately came to an end. The chak of defendant no.1 was allotted to him and the rule of coparcenary does not applies after the abolition of zamindari. The succession in agricultural land is governed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3 was for legal necessity and legally valid, since the defendant no.1 has right to transfer his interest in such property. It was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of land in suit ? 2. Whether the sale-deed dated 29.10.1985 is liable to be cancelled on the grounds mentioned in plaint ? 3. Whether plaintiff has no right to sue ? 4. Whether suit is undervalued and Court Fee paid is in- sufficient? 5. Whether suit is barred by principles of estoppel ? 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 7. Whether suit is barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act? 8. To what relief plaintiff is entitled ?;