- (1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide which the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, has been dismissed.
(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. As per the averments in the plaint, respondent-defendant No.2 Karey was recorded as joint owner in joint possession of the ancestral agricultural land to the extent of 1/3rd share. He was the Karta of the joint Hindu family, consisting the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. They were the coparceners and were joint in food, mess and residence. No partition of ancestral and non-ancestral properties had taken place. Respondentdefendant No.1 has got executed the false and fictitious agreement to sell dated 16.07.2003 with respect to the land in dispute taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of defendant No.2 as well as by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. False recitals of payment of Rs.6,62,000/- has been shown, whereas in fact the loan transaction of Rs.2,50,000/- has taken place between them at the rate of 1% interest. The land in dispute was ancestral property and was purchased by defendant No.2 out of the joint Hindu family funds by alienating the ancestral land by two registered sale deeds dated 02.06.1976 and 04.06.1976. Defendant No.1 on the basis of the aforesaid fictitious agreement, got executed and registered the sale deed dated 23.03.2006 in his favour by filing the false and frivolous suit for specific performance of contract and obtained the ex parte decree dated 23.07.2005. The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 had got the right in the suit land by birth being co-parceners. The alleged alienation was without legal necessity, without consideration and without any benefit of the joint Hindu family. The impugned sale deed does not confer any right, title or interest to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 on the basis of the impugned sale deed, is threatening to alienate the suit land and is bent upon to take up the illegal and forcible possession thereof. Hence, the suit.
(3.) Respondents-Defendants No.2 & 3 filed the written statement admitting the case of the plaintiffs.;