Court, particularly, the third defendant contended that he was not the signatory to the sale agreement but the other defendants have not disputed the very execution of the document and the First Appellate Court also taken note of the grounds urged by the third defendant and the First Appellate Court also in paragraph 24 of the judgment after considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY A MITTAL referred supra comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendants. It is also observed that in the sale agreement, the boundaries of the suit schedule properties is clearly mentioned only to the extent of 2 acres out of 8 acres 30 guntas of land and the defendants have agreed to sell the said extent of land. Hence, the agreement is only for the extent of 2 acres of land and remaining 6 acres 30 guntas of land is retained by the defendants. Even if the share of the third defendant is excluded from 2 acres of land, he can claim his share in the remaining extent of land. Therefore, the third defendant even he has not signed the document at Ex.P1, he can seek an appropriate relief. The First Appellate Court taken note of the very contention of the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to have the sale deed. In paragraph 25, it has discusses
