For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their status before the Trial Court. Special Civil Suit No. 443 of 2011 was preferred by the Plaintiff who are the daughters of Defendant No. 1 against Defendant No. 1 father, Defendant No. 2 second wife of the Defendant No. 1, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4-subsequent purchasers of the suit property, Defendant Nos. 5 daughter of Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 6 brother of Defendant No. 1. The properties are described in paragraph No. 1a and 1b of the plaint as ancestral properties of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 6. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the property though being ancestral properties have been alienated by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 without any legal necessity. It was contended that they had demanded partition and the separate possession which was denied and by registered sale deed dated 3rd February, 2011 the Defendant No. 1 has sold the suit property. It was also contended that the Defendant No. 1 has performed the second marriage with the Defendant No. 2 during the subsistence of his first marriage and as such, the marriage itself is void.
