VINEY MITTAL,J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of R.S.A. No.3469 and 3470 of 2002 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned first appellate court.
(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant before this court. He filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. He claimed that he is co-owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit property and that the sale deed dated November 12,1990 whereby defendants No.1 and 2 had sold the suit property to defendants No.3 to 7 was illegal, bad and not binding upon the plaintiff and that the lease deed dated November 13,1990 whereby certain property had been leased out for a period of 99 years to defendants No.3 to 7 were also challenged as illegal and not binding.
(3.) The plaintiff claimed that he along with his father Ramla was coparcener in the property in question. The suit property was claimed to be ancestral property in the hands of Ramla. Ramla was having 1/4th share in the suit property as coparcener. Ramla died in the year 1977. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Ramla mutation of his inheritance was wrongly entered as 1/3rd share each between plaintiff, Smt.Daulti daughter of Ramla and Shmt. Phoolwati wife of Ramla. Later on Shmt. Phoolwati died and her inheritance also opened. Her share also devolved upon plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal share. In this manner the plaintiff claimed that Smt. Daulti had no right to alienate 1/4 share in the total property in favour of defendants No. 3 to 7. In fact, Daulti suffered a decree in the year 1990 in favour of her husband Chander Pal Nagar, defendant No.2. The said decree was also challenged.;