JUDGMENT Mudgal, J. 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2002, passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna (Shri J.S. Varma) in Civil Suit No. 47A/2000 dismissing the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In this appeal appellants are referred as “plaintiffs” and the respondents as “defendants”. 2. The following admitted facts have come on record:- The plaintiff No. 1 Gajanand, plaintiff No. 2 Babulal and the defendant No. 1 Gordhan are real brothers and are sons of Gyasiram. As plaintiff No. 1 Gajanand and defendant No. 1 Gordhan have died during pendency of the suit and their legal representatives have already been brought on record. The disputed survey No. 1425/2 area 1.254 hectares in the Khasra Ex-P/1 was entered in the name of defendant No.1 Gordhan as Bhumiswami who had executed the sale deed on 15.1.92 in favour of defendant No. 2. Validity of the sale deed was not challenged by the vendor Gordhan in his life time. 3. The facts in brief of the plaint are that the plaintiffs Gajanand, Babulal and defendant No. 1 Gordhan were members of the joint Hindu family. After the death of Gyasiram (father) defendant No.1 Gordhan used to look after agricultural operation of the family. Plaintiffs have further alleged that after the death of Gyasiram the disputed property was equally distributed among the three sons of Gyasiram i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Though the disputed property was in the name of defendant No. 1, yet the whole disputed property was managed by the plaintiffs. The disputed agricultural land was divided among the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 orally in presence of Panch before 25 years and subsequently a memo of partition was reduced to writing in the year 1970 between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have further alleged that they are in possession of their respective shares after the oral partition as well as acknowledgment of deed reduced to writing. Defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the disputed land to the respondent No. 2. The sale deed dated 15.1.92 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not only illegal but also null and void. Defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the disputed land to the respondent No. 2. The sale deed dated 15.1.92 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not only illegal but also null and void. The disputed property is the joint Hindu family property which was given to the plaintiffs share in the partition. On the basis of the above allegations, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed on 9.5.92. By way of amendment additional relief was sought to declare the sale deed dated 15.1.92 executed in favour of the defendant No. 2 as null and void. 4. After the death of defendant No.1 during pendency of the suit, his legal representatives filed written statement admitting the entire allegations of the plaint and requested to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint. 5. The defendant No. 2 denying all the allegations made in the plaint has filed written statement that the disputed land is not the property of joint Hindu family of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Gordhan. On the contrary defendant No.1 Gordhan was the recorded Bhumiswami of the property and he was in possession, owing to which, the defendant No. 2 purchased the property from the defendant No.1 after paying entire consideration to him. Defendant No.1 did not challenge the legality of the sale deed. Plaintiffs have no right and title to the disputed land which was in possession of defendant No.1. After execution of the sale deed, the defendant No. 2 has been in possession of the land as owner. The plaintiffs have filed the suit with the connivance of the defendant No.1 and document of memorandum of partition is a fabricated and a concocted document, on the basis of which, the plaintiffs could not get any right in the property. Submitting the written statement defendant No. 2 has requested to reject the suit. 6. The learned trial Court after framing nine issues and having considered the evidence produced by both the parties has dismissed the suit as the disputed property was not found joint Hindu family property. The learned lower Court has further held that the property was not in possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 had purchased the disputed land from the Bhumiswami defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed. The learned lower Court has further held that the property was not in possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 had purchased the disputed land from the Bhumiswami defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief in the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was rejected vide impugned judgment. 7. The following questions crop up for consideration in this appeal - A.Whether the disputed agricultural land was joint Hindu family property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1? B.Whether the plaintiffs are Bhumiswami of the disputed land? C.Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 Gordhan in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void? D.Whether the findings of the lower Court are not based on proper reasonings? 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment by referring the evidence available on record has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned subordinate Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside as no proper appreciation of evidence has been made by the same. The learned counsel has further argued that the statement of the plaintiffs’ witnesses in respect of plaintiffs possession have not been properly appreciated and considered by the trial Court. Besides, the defendant No.1 has admitted the entire claim of the plaintiffs alleged in the plaint, and so the lower Court has committed error in dismissing the suit. The counsel has further contended that the decree for permanent injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiff ought to have been granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel has cited the few judgments to buttress his argument. 10. Counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the argument of the plaintiffs. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the argument advanced by the appellants counsel has submitted that the entire case is based on false and concocted story. The document as alleged the memorandum of partition (Ex-P/5) is a fabricated document which has been prepared by the plaintiffs with the connivance of his brother defendant No.1 after execution of the sale deed dated 15.1.92 by him in favour of defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper reasonings and appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper reasonings and appreciation of evidence. Moreover, no legal possession was handed over to the plaintiffs by defendant No.1 who was Bhumiswami of the disputed land. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants is merit less and no sufficient grounds have been made out by the appellants to interfere in the impugned judgment. 12. In civil cases, the pleadings have great importance in deciding the dispute. The object of pleadings is to enable the parties on each side to be fully aware of the issue involved and bringing forward the appropriate evidence. In M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 following observations made in the said decision are relevant in this context : “provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take”. In absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, produced by parties cannot be properly evaluated. 13. Before adverting to the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, first of all we have to look into the pleading of the plaintiffs. In paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have alleged that the disputed property was in the joint ownership of the joint Hindu family. After death of father Gyasiram, defendant no.1 became head of the family. However, it has not been clarified by the plaintiffs as to how the disputed property was acquired by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as joint Hindu family property. The plaintiffs have not claimed that the disputed land was earlier owned by their father Gyasiram or it was purchased by the nucleus of joint Hindu family in the name of defendant No.1. In Mulla Hindu Law (ninth addition at page 218), following property has been defined and stated as follows : “joint Hindu family property may be divided according to the source from which, it comes into : (I). ancestral property and as separate property of coparceners thrown into the common coparcenary stock. In Mulla Hindu Law (ninth addition at page 218), following property has been defined and stated as follows : “joint Hindu family property may be divided according to the source from which, it comes into : (I). ancestral property and as separate property of coparceners thrown into the common coparcenary stock. A property jointly acquired by the members of a joint family with the aid of ancestral property, is joint family property. The property jointly acquired by the members of a joint family without the aid of ancestral property may or may not be joint family property, whether, it is so or not, is a question of fact in each case. Joint family property is a creation of Hindu Law and those who owned it, are called coparcerners. As stated earlier, the plaintiffs have not disclosed source of joint Hindu family property in respect of the disputed land. 14. Indisputably, the disputed land in Khasra Ex. P/1 Samvat 2035 to 2049 was recorded in the name of defendant No.1 Gordhan. As per para 6A and relief clause Para 12 (2) of the plaint, the defendant No. 1 executed the registered sale deed on 15.1.1992 in favour of defendant No. 2. Admittedly, the disputed land had never been recorded in the name of plaintiffs or their father Gyasiram before execution of the sale deed dated 15.1.1992. 15. As alleged in para 3 of the plaint, the acknowledgment deed of partition was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 Gordhan in the year 1970. Moreover, no specific date has been mentioned in the pleadings. The document is unregistered. It is true that the memorandum of partition does not require any registration as held in the cases cited by appellants’ counsel namely Amarnath and others v. Nathuram and others 2004 (2) MPHT 360 and Suresh Kumar Agrawal and others v. State of M.P and another 2011 (II) MPJR 211. But in this case, Ex. P/5 has been written on a plain paper in a house hold transaction book and as to why the document was not prepared on the stamp paper, no explanation has been given by the plaintiffs. Any document can be easily prepared on a plain paper in the back date where all the parties figuring in the document are agreed about preparation of the same. 16. Any document can be easily prepared on a plain paper in the back date where all the parties figuring in the document are agreed about preparation of the same. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the legal heirs of defendant No.1 have admitted the contents of memorandum of partition as well as allegations of the plaint. In such premises, the plaintiffs were not required to prove the execution of memorandum of partition Ex. P/5 and on that basis it ought to have been concluded by the trial Court that the disputed property is joint Hindu family property. The contention raised by learned counsel does not appear to be correct. Though the legal heirs of defendant No.1 submitting written statement have admitted entire contents of the plaint and requested to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs but it has been done by them after execution of sale deed by their father. Under these circumstances, it is inferred that the defendant No.1 and his L.Rs have colluded with the plaintiffs in this suit, whereas, the defendant No.1 had never challenged the legality of the sale deed dated 15.1.1992 executed by him in favour of the defendant No.2 before filing of the suit on 9.5.1992 by the plaintiffs. So far as admission made by the L.Rs of defendant No.1 in the written statement is concerned, has no significance as it is settled law that after parting with the interest by a seller any contrary assertion is not an admission against a buyer. In Shafiullah Khan v. Abdul Wahab 1963 JLJ SN 14, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the statement of a person could be an admission only if it was made during the continuance of his interest. But once he has parted with his interest and property, his admission is not admissible under section18 of the Evidence Act. It would be manifestly unjust that a person who has parted with his interest and property should be empowered to divest the right of another claiming under him by any statement which he may choose to make subsequently. The same view has been taken in Smt. Ahilya Bai v. Sardar Bhagat Singh 2003(II) MPWN SN 38. It would be manifestly unjust that a person who has parted with his interest and property should be empowered to divest the right of another claiming under him by any statement which he may choose to make subsequently. The same view has been taken in Smt. Ahilya Bai v. Sardar Bhagat Singh 2003(II) MPWN SN 38. In the case in hand, the defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed to the defendant No.2 on 15.1.1992 and thereafter, written statement having admitted, the facts of the plaint filed by the L.Rs of defendant No.1 on 11.8.1999 does not affect the right of defendant No. 2. 17. Nemichand (PW 1) S/o deceased plaintiff No.1 Gyasiram and the plaintiff Babulal (PW 2) both have not stated a single word in their statements in respect of Ex. P/5 which shows that agreement Ex. P/5 was prepared by the plaintiffs with the connivance of defendant No.1 Gordhan who was their real brother. If Ex. P/5 had been in existence since 1970, it would have been acted upon for mutation of title in the name of plaintiffs also but that was not done. The statement of Heeralal (PW5) who has claimed himself to be scribe of Ex.P/5 has no substance to prove Ex. P/5. 18. In paras 4 and 5 of the plaintiff no.2 Babulal’s statement, it has come on record that the plaintiffs are five brothers. Why other two brothers have not been shown as the member of joint Hindu family and why their share have not been defined in the alleged disputed property. Similarly in the said paras, it has also come on record that 60 Bighas land is owned by the five brothers. However, that land has not been pleaded as the property of joint Hindu family and why the land was not partitioned by the plaintiffs vide Ex.P/5. Why all these facts were suppressed in the pleadings. Why only the disputed land which was actually sold by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No. 2 has been claimed as the property of joint Hindu family. In view of the facts, it is inferred that the entire plaintiffs’ case is based on baseless and bogus facts. 19. The plaintiffs have produced Ex. Why only the disputed land which was actually sold by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No. 2 has been claimed as the property of joint Hindu family. In view of the facts, it is inferred that the entire plaintiffs’ case is based on baseless and bogus facts. 19. The plaintiffs have produced Ex. P/3 certified copy of the report dated 22.3.1992 submitted by Patwari village Aron Halka No. 20 Tahsildar in which, possession of the plaintiffs on the disputed land has been stated but the statement of said Patwari has not got been recorded by the plaintiffs and so, Ex. P/3 has no value to prove the plaintiffs’ possession. Similarly, Ex. P/4 is a panchnama. The persons signing the panchnama Ex.P/4 have not been examined. Both the documents are created evidence which has no importance. Besides other document Ex.P/5 report submitted by the Revenue Inspector regarding demarcation of the disputed property and panchanama Ex.P/6 have also been produced on record by the plaintiffs, but neither statement of Revenue Inspector nor panch witnesses mentioned in panchnama Ex.P/6 have been got been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Therefore, both the documents have no relevance for proving possession of the plaintiffs. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the findings of lower Court regarding possession are also perverse to the recorded evidence as all the plaintiffs witnesses have deposed in their statements and proved possession of the plaintiffs. In spite of that, the suit for injunction was rejected by learned subordinate Court erroneously. The plaintiffs witnesses have deposed in their statements regarding the plaintiffs being in possession of the disputed property since more than 20 years ago but the oral statements of witnesses are not credible because, no entry regarding possession has been made in Khasra in the name of plaintiffs till filing of the suit. Indisputably, name of defendant No.1 Gordhan has been recorded as Bhumiswami in the Khasra, hence, presumption under section 117 of the Land Revenue Code is drawn in favour of the defendant No.1 to this effect that he was in possession of the disputed land till it was sold by him to the defendant No. 2. Learned trial Court having discussed the plaintiffs’ witnesses’ statements in paras 11 and 16, have given the finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property. Learned trial Court having discussed the plaintiffs’ witnesses’ statements in paras 11 and 16, have given the finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the findings are based upon proper reasonings. The defendant No.2 Prakash Cahndra purchaser of the property has rebutted the plaintiffs evidence regarding possession of the disputed property. Besides, the possession of the defendant No. 2 is based on registered sale deed which was executed by the defendant No.1 in his favour. Consequently, it is held that possession of the defendant No.2 is legal possession. 21. Learned appellant’s counsel placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Pooran v. Shakuntala and Another 2003 (II) MPJR SN 11 has submitted that even title of the plaintiffs was not proved in this case, a decree of permanent injunction ought to have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of possession. This judgment does not help to the plaintiffs as the possession of the plaintiffs has not been found proved as discussed earlier. Similarly, the appellants’ counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs and another 2004 (II) MPWN 25 = 2004 SAR (Civil) 107 and RVE Venkatchala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another 2003 SAR (Civil) 929. The aforesaid judgments also do not help in this case to the plaintiffs as the cited judgments are totally based on different facts and circumstances from the case in hand. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants further placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Bhagwan Das v. State of M.P and another 2001 (I) MPJR 113 has argued that the defendant No.2 has not produced original sale deed in this case, owing to which, possession and title of the defendant No. 2 cannot be held. This judgment is also on different facts because, the suit was filed by coparceners of joint Hindu family whereas, in the case in hand, the plaintiffs right have not been found proved as discussed earlier. 23. Going through the entire recorded evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that finding given by the learned lower Court dismissing the suit are neither perverse nor contrary to the recorded evidence. No flaw has been found in the impugned judgment to interfere with it. 23. Going through the entire recorded evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that finding given by the learned lower Court dismissing the suit are neither perverse nor contrary to the recorded evidence. No flaw has been found in the impugned judgment to interfere with it. Consequently, affirming the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. 24. Costs of this appeal for respondents be borne out by the appellants. Advocate fees be included, if certified as per rules. Decree be drawn up accordingly. ................ xzaFk 62 laiw.kZ