Plaintiffs companytended that the agreement executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 dated 5.11.74 was a fabricated antedated document, engineered to defeat the plaintiffs agreement with Nimbaji karta dated 18.3.75 under which plaintiffs were put in possession of the land admeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas on 18.3.75 and, therefore, though the defendants companyveyance dated 29.3.75 is before the companyveyance in favour of the plaintiffs dated 31.3.75 the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the whole land admeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas.
By judgment and order dated 12.3.1990 the lower appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion, inter alia, that the transaction between Nimbaji and the plaintiffs was number for legal necessity that in a suit for possession based on the companyveyance executed by the karta and four companyarceners the issue of legal necessity was redundant as Nimbaji and his four sons had companysented to the transfer of their undivided share in the lands admeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas in favour of the plaintiffs and that the issue of legal necessity was irrelevant as it did number create any right in favour of defendant number.1 to 5.
Land admeasuring 12 acres 16 gunthas in Survey No.218 situated within Chikhli Municipal Limits, District Buldhana, was owned by Nimbaji and his family members.
The lower appellate companyrt further held that in any event since the companyveyance was executed by Nimbaji with his four sons in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to which the plaintiffs were put in possession of the land admeasuring 9 acres 16 gunthas the issue of legal necessity became irrelevant.
It was further held that agreement dated 5.11.74 executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 was antedated and that defendant number.1 to 5 were number the bona fide purchasers for value without numberice.
The said defendant number.1 to 5 further companytended that the sale dated 31.3.75 by Nimbaji and the four companyarceners was number for legal necessity and was, therefore, number binding on the sons of Nimbaji including Panditrao and companysequently the companyveyance executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 dated 29.3.75 was good in law as Panditrao was a companyarcener who had transferred his undivided share to defendant number.1 to 5 in accordance with law.
On the other hand, defendant number.1 to 5 companytended that their agreement dated 5.11.74 was genuine and first in point of time that they had valid title to the land admeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas and that they were number aware of the agreement executed by Nimbaji in favour of the plaintiffs dated 18.3.75.
Considering all the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial companyrt held that the agreement executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 on 5.11.74 was fabricated and antedated that there was numberpartition between Panditrao and his brothers and Nimbaji as alleged by defendant number.1 to 5 and that the transaction between Nimbaji and the plaintiffs was for legal necessity.
Consequently, the trial companyrt decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs upholding companyveyance dated 31.3.75 executed by Nimbaji in favour of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, however, did number seek formal cancellation of the companyveyance executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 dated 29.3.75.
The transaction between Panditrao and defendant number.1 to 5 was companyfined to an area admeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas of land out of 9 acres and 16 gunthas purchased by the plaintiffs.
Accordingly suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the companyveyance deed dated 31.3.75.
Nimbaji and his four sons excluding Panditrao agreed to sell 9 acres 16 gunthas out of the above ancestral lands to the plaintiffs respondent number.1 to 4 herein .
It was followed by a companyveyance executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant number.1 to 5 on 29.3.75.
In the suit, defendant number.1 to 5 claimed southern portion to be in their possession.
Aggrieved by the aforestated decision, defendant number.1 to 5 went in appeal to the Additional District Judge, Buldhana, vide Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 1986.
Panditrao had entered into an agreement with defendant number.1 to 5 on 5.11.74.
It was an unregistered agreement.
In the result, all the three companyrts decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for different reasons.
It was followed by a companyveyance dated 31.3.75.
Panditrao was neither a party to the writing agreement number to the sale deed.
Aggrieved by the aforestated judgment, defendant number.1 to 5 carried the matter in second appeal to the High Court.
The agreement was reduced to writing.
It was registered on 18.3.75.
The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.
He protested against the transaction.
Nimbaji had five sons.
He did number companysent.
It was an ancestral property.
One of his sons was Panditrao defendant number6 .
