devolved upon defendant Nos.1 to 3 in equal shares being his sons. Plaintiffappellant, defendant Nos.6 and 7, Jatinder Singh and defendant No.4 are also co-sharers in the suit land by birth and Deepo @ Dalip Singh had no right to sell the same without legal necessity. However, Deepo had executed an alleged sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 which is illegal, invalid, without consideration and without any legal necessity and without the consent of the plaintiff-appellant, defendant Nos.6 and 7 and father of the plaintiff-appellant and the said sale deed is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit. In their written statement the defendant-respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. On merits it was denied that Deepo @ Dalip Singh was not competent to execute the sale deed or that the sale deed in their favour was illegal. It was stated that Kulwinder Singh, the real brother of the plaintiff-appellant, was one of the attesting witness of the sale deed and that the suit was barred as the sale deed in question had already been upheld as a valid document in the previous suit titled as ‘Kirpal Singh Vs Deepo @ Dalip Singh and Others’ decided on 30.04.1999 wherein the relief of declaring the suit land as ancestral property had been claimed. The appeal against the decision dated 30.04.1999 had also been dismissed. It was also denied that Deepo @ Dalip Singh had no right to sell the suit land without legal necessity and that it had been held by the Civil Court that the suit land was the self acquired property of Dalip Singh and he was competent to sell the same in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Replication was filed wherein the contents of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated.
