properties are ancestral properties and after demise of the original ancestral Sakharam, the suit properties were inherited by the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint was that they had received the notice from the Circle Officer Wagholi as regards the mutation entry Nos. 4794 and 4795 and upon enquiry they came to know that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had sold 5 acre land to Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 each by Registered Sale Deed dated 15th July, 1996 without the consent of the Plaintiffs. It was pleaded that partition was sought, however the same has been refused. It was further pleaded that upon the search of the records, it was found that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had played fraud and have sold the properties by different sale deeds to Defendant Nos. 7 to 14 and recently sold 4 H, 50 R land out of Gat No. 659 to Defendant Nos. 15 and 16 by sale deed dated 13th December, 1977. It was pleaded that there was no legal necessity to alienate the ancestral properties. It was further pleaded that the Plaintiff No. 1 is blind and not aware of the execution of the sale deed and that the Plaintiff No. 2 was minor at the relevant time.
