PRAKASH GUPTA,J. - (1.) The appellant's by way of the present first appeal have challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1995 passed by the District Judge, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 37/1990 (19/88), whereby the trial Court had partly decreed the suit seeking declaration, cancellation of sale deed, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this first appeal in brief are that plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit in the "trial Court" against the appellants (defendants No. 1 and 4 in the suit) and respondents No. 4 and 5 (defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit) seeking declaration, cancellation of the sale-deed dated 2.2.1988, recovery of possession and permanent injunction wherein, it is stated that respondent No. 1 is the wife of appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 4 ; is the mother of appellant No. 2 and plaintiff-respondents No. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of appellant No. 2. Respectively. Appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 1 constructed a house after selling the ornament of respondent No. 1 for want of requisite money, details of which have been given in para No. 3 of the plaint. Since the respondents No. 1 to 3 are members of a joint Hindu Undivided Family, they also have legal rights to have equal shares in the 'guwadi' and house. Because appellant No. 1 ignored and failed to maintain respondents 1 to 3, respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial house at Sikar and went to Sujangarh, taking respondents No. 2 and 3 along with her. Behind her back, appellant No. 2 sold ? .. "rd share belonging to respondents No. 1 to 3 for a sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- to proforma-respondent No. 5 (Smt. Usha Agarwal) and executed in her favour a sale-deed dated 9.8.1990, stated to be in pursuance of agreement to sale executed between them in February, 1980. Which the appellant No. 2 was not entitled to do under the law as the property in question, was the property of the joint Hindu Undivided Family and an individual person cannot sell the property of joint Hindu Undivided Family without the prior permission of other family members.
(3.) Proforma-respondent No. 5 Smt. Usha Agarwal filed written statement to the plaint denying the averments made therein stating that the property, which had been sold to her is not a joint Hindu Undivided Family property but a property self-acquired by the appellant No. 2 and respondents No. 1 to 3 went to another place leaving the appellant No. 2 in lurch. It is stated in the written statement that respondents No. 1 to 3 have no vested legal right, title and interest in the disputed property and appellant No. 2 has legally sold his self-acquired property to her. Therefore, respondents No. 1 to 3 have no legal right to ask for division/partition of the property since she had acquired the said property after paying full sale consideration against the same and presently she is residing therein.;