- (1.) Plaintiffs had filed a suit for joint possession and declaration that the decrees dated 8.9.1986 and 16.104986 were not binding on them.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family. The pedigree table as shown in para 1 of the plaint is as under:
(3.) Defendant No.1 had inherited the suit property from his father.' Defendant No.1 was, thus, not competent to alienate, transfer or dispose of the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 or any one else without any legal necessity. Defendant No.3 in collusion with defendant No.1 filed suits bearing No.293 of 1986 and 579 of 1986 against defendant No.1, alleging therein, that the land mentioned in the plaint were self- acquired property of defendant No.1. However, as per the revenue record, the suit property was recorded in the name of defendant No.1. Hence, the decrees passed in the suit filed by defendant No.3, on the basis of admission made by defendant No.1, were not binding on the plaintiffs as they were not party to the said suits.;