admittedly, the grandfather of the said defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 is also grandfather of the plaintiffs. He drew my attention to paragraph 3 of the written statement of defendants no. 2, 3 and 4, wherein it is averred that the father of the defendants was in possession of the suit plot and the after the death of the father, they continued to possess and enjoy the suit property and that plaintiff no.1 and 2, who got married in the year 1970 and 1968 respectively, never turned up to the parental house. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that admittedly, plaintiffs had also right in the suit property and whether they turn up or not, the said right cannot be lost unless there is relinquishment of the same. He submitted that in respect of plaintiff no. 2, there was not even an alleged relinquishment and in respect of plaintiff no. 1, alleged relinquishment was not registered and therefore, the original defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 who were only the co-owners of joint suit property could not have sold the specific portion of the property to the defendant no. 1. According to him, therefore, the sale deed dated 11/5/1992 was ab-initio void due to which there was no need of even an amendment to the plaint for declaration that the said sale deed was null and void. He pointed out that the defendants no. 2 to 4 were not claiming exclusive possession of the suit property. According to him, even if the amendment, which was proposed by the plaintiffs to the plaint was not allowed
