JUDGMENT : G.S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 31-10-2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2000 by which the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction on the ground that by a registered sale deed dated 1-2-1989 seven persons including the plaintiffs had purchased 11250 sq.ft. of land situated in Bhargava Colony, Guna. Later on, all the seven persons, namely, plaintiffs and Smt. Munnidevi, Rameshchandra Bhargava, Smt. Daulatbai, Dhamidhar Tiwari and Smt. Pushpadevi got their names jointly mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, the land was partitioned mutually and by order dated 30-1-1990 the land was got diverted from agricultural to residential purposes. 3. The plaintiffs have got house constructed, which is marked by red colour in the map. Two rooms of 26½ × 12½ each have been constructed and on the north side a passage has been left, whereas on the east side, houses of Smt. Pushpadevi and others are situated. The plaintiffs decided to construct their house on the land admeasuring 30 × 40 sqft. and accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 constructed a room of 12½ × 12½ sqft. and plaintiff No. 2 constructed one room of 14 × 12½ sqft. and the remaining land is lying open in the plot of plaintiff No. 2. The construction was raised about 1½ years back and the rooms were locked by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants broke open the locks and at present the defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 are residing in the said rooms. The father of the plaintiffs and other relatives have told the plaintiffs that the locks of the rooms were broken on 20-2-1992 and 21-2-1992 and the defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 have brought their belongings and have started residing therein. The father of the plaintiffs and other relatives have told the plaintiffs that the locks of the rooms were broken on 20-2-1992 and 21-2-1992 and the defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 have brought their belongings and have started residing therein. A written complaint was made by the husband of the plaintiff No. 2 on 24-2-1992 because the plaintiff No. 2 after marriage is residing in Shivpuri and prior to her marriage, she was in service and was posted at Guna and since the house is situated in Guna and, therefore, she is resident of Guna. The revenue authorities and the Town Inspector had carried out the inspection on the spot and thereafter the defendants No. 1 and 2 were stopped from carrying out any further construction. The plaintiffs have come to know that the defendant No. 3 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 8-1-1992 in respect of the open land. In the sale deed it was mentioned that Kashinath had filed a civil suit against defendant No. 3, which has been dismissed by judgment dated 19-9-1991 and the civil appeal has also been dismissed by judgment dated 12-12-1991, but the fact is that the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected and the civil suit is still pending. The sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void ab initio because the defendant No. 3 had no right or title to execute the sale deed and the defendant No. 1 does not derive any title from the sale deed executed in his favour and the name of the defendant No. 1 has also not been mutated in the revenue record so far. The plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the said sale deed on 21-2-1992, but in spite of various applications made to the Administrative Officers, they have not got any relief. The defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 are residing in the disputed property and the defendants No. 4 and 5 are making payment of Rs. 300/- per month to defendant No. 1 by way of rent, whereas the defendant No. 6 is paying Rs. 150/- per month by way of rent to the defendant No. 2, who is the father of defendant No. 1. 300/- per month to defendant No. 1 by way of rent, whereas the defendant No. 6 is paying Rs. 150/- per month by way of rent to the defendant No. 2, who is the father of defendant No. 1. On 15-2-1992 at about 8 A.M. the defendants No. 1 and 2 came on the spot along with labourers and tried to start raising construction. On an oral complaint, the SHO sent a Constable and because of that the defendants No. 1 and 2 left the spot, but threatened that they would resume the construction very soon and would take possession of the entire land. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute and the defendant No. 3 has illegally executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 under the influence of defendant No. 2. The defendants No. 1 and 2 after taking possession of the property have let out the rooms to defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 and are inclined to raise additional construction and in case the additional construction is allowed to be raised, then the present suit would become infructuous. Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession as well as for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared as null and void. 4. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was alleged that in fact one Gajribai was the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. A partition had taken place between Gajribai and Kashinath and the land in dispute had fallen to the share of Gajribai. Plaintiffs have never been in possession of the land in dispute and they have no title over the property. Even if Kashinath, who is the father of plaintiffs, has executed sale deed in favour of his daughters (plaintiff) in order to adversely affect the right of Gajribai, even then the same is a sham document and it was executed without any consideration and, therefore, it is a waste piece of paper and without any effect. Kashinath has never been the solitary owner of survey No. 857/1. He had no right or authority to execute the sale deed in favour of his daughters in order to adversely affect the rights of Gajribai. Kashinath has never been the solitary owner of survey No. 857/1. He had no right or authority to execute the sale deed in favour of his daughters in order to adversely affect the rights of Gajribai. The partition between the purchasers is false. The mutation proceedings and diversion proceedings are sham documents and they are void ab initio, as these proceedings were done without any information to the co-owner Gajribai and forged documents have been prepared. The sale deed on which the plaintiffs are placing reliance does not contain measurements as well as the boundaries of the land in dispute. The description of the property is vague. The map is not the exact projection of the actual position of the spot. Actual position will not be able to be identified unless and until the same is demarcated. The plaintiffs have not constructed any room. In fact the defendant No. 1 after purchasing the land in dispute on 9-1-1992 had constructed two rooms and had protected the remaining open land by affixing stones. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit under the incorrect directions of their father. The fact with regard to construction of two rooms by the plaintiffs and putting their locks is false. The locks were never broken. The rooms were constructed by defendant No. 1 and have been let out to the defendants No. 4 and 6, which have been vacated by them. The defendant No. 5 had never been their tenant. The defendant No. 2 has been wrongly impleaded as party to the suit and similarly defendant No. 5 has also been wrongly made a party to the suit. The allegation that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed on 21-2-1992 is false. The further allegation of making an attempt to raise construction on 15-2-1992 is also false. 5. The defendant No. 3 also filed her written statement. In the said written statement she had stated that after partition of the property between herself and Kashinath, the disputed land had fallen to her share, but Kashinath later on with an intention to adversely affect the rights of the defendant No. 3 had wrongly executed a sale deed in favour of her daughters. The mutation proceedings as well as diversion proceedings were got done in a clandestine maimer and she was never noticed and, therefore, the entire proceedings are void ab initio. The mutation proceedings as well as diversion proceedings were got done in a clandestine maimer and she was never noticed and, therefore, the entire proceedings are void ab initio. The defendant No. 3 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, who has constructed the rooms and have let out the same. All remaining plaint averments were denied. 6. The defendant No. 4-Laxminarayan also filed written statement and stated that he is in occupation of a room and is making payment of Rs. 150/- per month by way of rent to defendant No. 1 and he has never paid rent to defendant No. 2. 7. The trial Court framed following issues:— 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute? 2. Whether on 20 and 21st February, 1992 the defendants have broke open the locks of two rooms belonging to the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the open land adjoining to the rooms? 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property as well as the rooms constructed over it and whether the defendants No. 4 to 6 are in possession of the same in the capacity of a tenant? 5. Whether the defendants No. 2 and 5 are not necessary parties? 6. Whether Munnidevi, Rameshchand, Daulatbai, Dhamidhar and Pushapabai are necessary parties and if yes, then what is the effect of non-joinder of necessary parties? 7. Relief and costs? 8. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case have examined Chandrawati (PW- 1), Narendra Kumar (PW-2), Kashinath Bhargava (PW-3), Baijnath (PW-4), Rajkumar (PW-5), Leeladhar (PW-6), Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (PW-7), Arjun Singh (PW-8) and Dr. P.S. Sikarvar (PW-9). 9. The appellant examined himself as DW-1, Rambabu (DW-2), Rajkumar Sharma (DW-3) and Dr. Rajendra Singh Rajput (DW-4). 10. Here it is important to mention that Gajribai-defendant No. 3 had filed her written statement, but she did not appear as a witness to prove that she was the joint owner of the property in dispute along with Kashinath and an oral partition had taken place between herself and Kashinath and the land in dispute had fallen to her share. 11. Deepak Goyal (DW-1), who had purchased the property from Gajribai had not stated in his examination-in-chief with regard to right and title of Gajribai to execute the sale deed. 11. Deepak Goyal (DW-1), who had purchased the property from Gajribai had not stated in his examination-in-chief with regard to right and title of Gajribai to execute the sale deed. Rambabu (DW-2) has stated that he has constructed two rooms as the contract of the same was given to him by Deepak Goyal (DW-1). Rajkumar Sharma (DW-3) is the witness to the sale deed executed by Gajribai-defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1. Dr. Rajendra Singh Rajput (DW-4) had stated that the rooms were constructed by defendant No. 1 and he is in possession of the same. 12. Chandrawati (PW-1) has stated that the land was jointly recorded in the name of Gajribai and Kashinath and partition had taken place and the sale deed was executed by their father Kashinath in favour of plaintiffs. 13. The plaintiffs have placed the orders of demarcation and mutation on record. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had got two rooms constructed over the land in dispute. Baijnath (PW-4) has stated that on the instructions of the plaintiffs, he had supplied 15000 bricks and price of the bricks was paid by the plaintiffs. Rajkumar (PW-5), Leeladhar (PW-6) are the persons who had purchased some piece of land along with the plaintiffs. Kashinath (PW-3) has admitted that he and Gajribai were co-sharers in Survey No. 857 area 36 bigha 16 biswa, out of which 7 bigha of land was gifted by them to Mangilal Tripathi and the said land was renumbered as Survey No. 857/2 and the remaining land was renumbered as Survey No. 857/1. The property was being enjoyed by both Gajribai and Kashinath. 70 plots were prepared and 35 plots each were shared by Gajribai and Kashinath. On 1-2-1989 he had sold half bigha land to the plaintiffs and six more purchasers. The land was got diverted. Their names were mutated. 14. Thus, from the evidence, which has been led by the parties, it is clear that Kashinath (PW-3) has specifically stated that the land in dispute had fallen to his share, whereas Gajribai could not dare to come in the witness-box to depose in the matter. Deepak Goyal (Dw-1) had claimed himself to be a Civil Contractor, but surprisingly he had given the contract for construction of rooms to Rambabu (DW-2). Surprisingly Rambabu (DW-2) is in the business of motor winding. Deepak Goyal (Dw-1) had claimed himself to be a Civil Contractor, but surprisingly he had given the contract for construction of rooms to Rambabu (DW-2). Surprisingly Rambabu (DW-2) is in the business of motor winding. It is surprising that Deepak Goyal (DW-1), who himself was a Civil Contractor, instead of constructing the rooms by himself had given the contract of constructing the rooms to a motor binder. Rambabu (DW-2) also could not clarify that from which shop he had purchased cement. He also could not clarify that from whom he had purchased the bricks although in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief he has stated that the construction material was purchased by him. Thus, it is clear that the claim of Deepak Goyal (DW-1) that he had constructed the rooms after purchasing the same from Gajribai is false. 15. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the defendant has failed to prove that Gajribai had any right and title to execute the sale deed in favour of Deepak Goyal (DW-1). Deepak Goyal (DW-1) has also failed to prove that he had constructed the rooms after purchasing the land. Thus, the sale deed dated 8-9-1999 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void ab initio and is not binding on the plaintiffs. Since the defendants have forcibly taken possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the plaintiffs are also entitled for a decree for possession of the disputed property. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31-10-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2000 has decreed the suit and has declared that the plaintiffs are the title holder of the land in dispute and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void ab initio and is not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are also entitled for a decree for possession and accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction has also been passed. 16. The findings of facts recorded by the trial Court are well reasoned and supported by the evidence available on record, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2000 is hereby affirmed. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly.