JUDGMENT : MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 31.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 3A/2013 by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar by which the appeal/plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. 2. Appellant/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration that three sale deeds dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No. 1 Bawa Ram in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Aangan Bai defendant No. 3 are illegal and inoperative. Plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the property in dispute as described in the schedule of the plaint be declared as joint property and also prayed for a decree of partition. It was pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff Bhagwat Prasad and defendant No. 2 Teerath Ram are sons of defendant No. 1 Bawa Ram. Defendant No. 4 Smt. Sumitra Bai is the wife of Bawa Ram. Defendant No. 3 Smt. Aangan Bai is the wife of Teerath Ram whereas defendant No. 5 Smt. Kheekh Bai is the daughter of Bawa Ram. This relation between the parties in not under dispute. 3. Case of the plaintiff is that Bawa Ram and his family hold joint family property at village Charoda, district Baloda Bazar. It has been the case of the plaintiff that the property in dispute has been acquired by defendant No. 1 from the sale proceeds of the joint family property and from income earned out of the joint family property. The defendant No. 1 had no right to sell any of the properties including those which has been sold to defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai wife of Teerath Ram Dhritlahre. It was further pleaded that the sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 is a sham document and there had been no sale as defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai was not possessed of sufficient funds. According to the plaintiff, the transaction was only to deprive the plaintiff from the lawful possession of the property in dispute. On these pleadings the plaintiff prayed for the relief. 4. Defendant in two written statements came out with the plea that the entire property in dispute belong to Bawa Ram as his self acquired property and it does not form the joint family property. On these pleadings the plaintiff prayed for the relief. 4. Defendant in two written statements came out with the plea that the entire property in dispute belong to Bawa Ram as his self acquired property and it does not form the joint family property. Defendants 1 & 4 filed their written statement in which it was pleaded that the property shown in the schedule were purchased by Bawa Ram in his own name at different point of time in five different villages namely Ramtala, Devarbod, Bhilaigarh, Baansurkuli and Tadapara. According to the defendants all the properties were purchased by Bawa Ram from his own income and therefore, it does not constitute joint family property and it is his self acquired property. Defendants No. 2 & 3 filed a separate written statement denying that the property in dispute was the joint family property and they have also made similar pleadings regarding the purchase of property in dispute by Bawa Ram from his own income and it being his self acquired property and not a joint family property. It has further been pleaded that defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai is in possession of agricultural property by which she is earning and further that her husband Teerath Ram is a Government Servant and he also contributed towards the purchase of three properties under the three sale deeds dated 16.08.2010. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed two issues: ^^1- D;k okni= esa nf'kZr vuqlwph ^^v** dh oknHkwfe vkSj vuqlwph ^^c** dh okn edku oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k dh la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh la;qDr laifRr gksdj la;qDr ifjokj dh vk; ls vkSj d`f"k Hkwfe dh mit ls Ø; dh xbZ gS \ 2- D;k oknHkwfe [kljk ds laca/k esa fnukad 16-08-2010 dks Áfroknh Øekad 1 }kjk Áfroknh Øekad 3 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s foØ; i= fcuk ÁfrQy ds "kM~;a=iwoZd dwV jfpr foØ; i= gksdj voS/k gS \ 3- D;k okn Hkwfe vkSj edku dk cVokjk djkdj dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- D;k lgk;rk ,oa O;; \** 5. Plaintiff examined 5 witnesses namely Bhagwat Prasad-plaintiff himself as PW-1, Babu Ram (PW-2), Hari Ram (PW-3), Nand Ram (PW-4) and Kheekh Bai (PW-5) and sought to rely upon as many as 22 documents exhibited as Ex. P-1 to P-22. Plaintiff examined 5 witnesses namely Bhagwat Prasad-plaintiff himself as PW-1, Babu Ram (PW-2), Hari Ram (PW-3), Nand Ram (PW-4) and Kheekh Bai (PW-5) and sought to rely upon as many as 22 documents exhibited as Ex. P-1 to P-22. Defendants examined Teerath Ram (DW-1), Aangan Bai (DW-2), Dinesh (DW-3), Dhan Sai (DW-4), Kedar (DW-5), Ganesh Ram (DW-6) and Sahas Ram (DW-7) and relied upon 25 documents exhibited as Ex. D-1 to D-25. 6. Learned trial court, held that the plaintiffs pleading with regard to the jointness of the property are vague and unspecific. It was further held by the learned trial court that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the properties purchased by Bawa Ram were purchased out of proceeds or income from any other joint family property or the property situated at village Charoda. Having so recorded, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 7. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment/decree learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the plaintiff had made a specific plea in the plaint that the property in dispute which has been shown in the schedule of the plaint are joint family properties. He would submit that with this plea the plaintiff also pleaded as to what were the joint family properties, where they were situated and also how they were sold and later on, Bawa Ram purchased the properties out of the sale proceeds of the properties of joint family which consisted of his son Bhagwat Prasad, Teerath Ram, his wife Sumitra Bai as also daughter Kheekh Bai. Further submission of counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff proved from oral and documentary evidence that Bawa Ram held joint family property with his brother and mother at village Charoda and later on, Bawa Ram received his share at village Charoda which was sold by him. Further submission of counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff proved from oral and documentary evidence that Bawa Ram held joint family property with his brother and mother at village Charoda and later on, Bawa Ram received his share at village Charoda which was sold by him. All the properties which were recorded at village Charoda were ancestral property of the family of Bawa Ram and whatever was received as share by Bawa Ram was his ancestral property therefore, all the properties acquired by Bawa Ram by purchase at 5 different villages in the course of time were either purchased from the sale proceeds of the properties situated at village Charoda which had come to the share of Bawa Ram or purchased from the income derived from those properties which were initially purchased by Bawa Ram at village Ramtala out of the sale proceeds of properties at village Charoda. 8. He would next submit that in addition to the oral evidence led by the plaintiff, the reply to the notices namely Ex. P-20 to Ex. P-22 are clear admission of the fact that the entire property in dispute was joint family property. He would submit that these two replies show that Bawa Ram, Teerath Ram and Angan Bai too had taken a stand that there existed a joint family property and a partition had taken place amongst all of them in the year 2010 but while contesting the suit, somersault was taken by denying the very existence of the joint family and the joint family property. It is next submitted that if once the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the property held by Bawa Ram at village Charoda was ancestral property which was also sold by him, then a presumption of jointness arises in favour of the plaintiff and the burden is on the defendants to prove that properties purchased by Bawa Ram in course of time at five different villages from time to time were not purchased either from the sale proceeds of ancestral property at village Charoda or from the income derived from properties purchased from the sale proceeds of property at village Charoda. Therefore in these circumstances the learned trial court ought to have held that the entire property was the joint family property. 9. Therefore in these circumstances the learned trial court ought to have held that the entire property was the joint family property. 9. Following point arises for consideration in this appeal: Whether the plaintiff has proved that the property in dispute was acquired by Bawa Ram out of the sale proceeds of sale of his share held by him at village Charoda and the income derived from such acquired property. 10. If we look at the pleadings, plaintiff/appellant has pleaded in para 4 of his plaint as below: ^^4- ;g fd okn laifRr bl fgUnq ifjokj dh lgnkf;dh laifRr gS] ftuesa oknh ,oa Áfroknh Øekad 01 ,oa 02 dk tUe ls LokfeRo gd ,oa vf/kdkj gS] ;g lHkh okn laifRr Áfroknh Øekad 01 }kjk mudh iwoZt dh laifRr dks fcØh djds rFkk vftZr dh xbZ laifRr gSA vr% iSr`d laifRr gS vkSj iwoZ esa lHkh dk 'kkfey ljhd gd jgk gSA bl dkj.k fdlh ,d dks foØ; djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 5- ;g fd okn nksuksa edku tks xzke fcykbZx<+ esa [kljk uacj 634@1 jdck 0-034 gsDV;j rFkk [kljk uacj 638@1 jdck 0-014 gsDV;j esa cuk gqvk edku gS rFkk xzke jeryk esa /kugk Hkwfe [kljk uacj 530 jdck 0-251 gsDV;j gSA ;s nksuksa edku ,oa [ksr bl fgUnq ifjokj ds la;qDr vftZr /kujkf'k ,oa d`f"k Hkwfe ds mit dh jkf'k ls la;qDr ifjokj }kjk Ø; dh xbZ laifRr gS] ftlesa la;qDr lnL;ksa dk cjkcj gd gSA** 11. The plaintiff in the plaint has described the property in dispute which shows that there were lands situated at village Ramtala, Devarbod, Bhilaigarh, Baansurkuli and Tadapara. The total extent of land is shown as 2.396 hectare, 5.918 acres. In addition to this, two houses, one at village Bhilaigarh with their number and area has also been described in the plaint. If the pleadings as stated in para 4 and 5 are read along with the descriptions of the property, we have no hesitation to hold that in so far as the plaint averments are concerned there are specific pleadings made by the plaintiff that all the properties shown in the plaint which include lands at different villages and two houses are joint family properties. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that these properties were joint family property. 12. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that these properties were joint family property. 12. Bhagwat (FW-1) the plaintiff himself has deposed that there exists a joint family and the property in dispute is joint family property on which the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 are entitled to their respective share. He further deposed that the aforesaid property was acquired by sale of ancestral property as also from the income derived from ancestral property. He further states that in this property, there is share of all the members of the joint family. He further deposed that the house situated at village Bhilaigarh and land situated at village Ramtala have been purchased from the income derived from the joint family property. According to him, the property sold to defendant No. 2 Angan Bai is only intended to deprive him of his lawful share in the joint family property and his sister-in-law does not have the financial capacity to purchase the same. This witness has also placed on record the entries of Adhikar Abhilekh Panji (As per Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954) Ex. P-1. In addition he has placed on record the sale deeds from Ex. P-2 to P-11 which shows that Bawa Ram sold various properties at village Charoda. The notices given by the plaintiff and their reply received had also been placed on record the plaintiff as Ex. P-20, 21 and 22. In his cross-examination, he admits that Saradhu was his grand father. Bawa Ram and Hannu Rarti were brothers and sons of Saradhu and Sevati Bai is and proved by examination, he also admitted. However this witness denied that after death of Saradhu the land was purchased by Bawa Ram and Hannu Ram, sons of Smt. Sevati Bai from their own income. In cross-examination, a suggestion has been given to this witness wherein, he has admitted that Bawa Ram, Hannu Ram and Smt. Sevati Bai had partitioned the landed properties amongst themselves. In further cross-examination, he has stated that one year prior to coming to Ramtala, Bawa Ram had 14 acre situated at village Charoda in respect of which he has submitted documentary evidence Ex. P-1. This witness has further deposed that after coming to Ramtala, Bawa Ram purchased 5 acres of land at village Ramtala which was recorded in his name. In further cross-examination, he has stated that one year prior to coming to Ramtala, Bawa Ram had 14 acre situated at village Charoda in respect of which he has submitted documentary evidence Ex. P-1. This witness has further deposed that after coming to Ramtala, Bawa Ram purchased 5 acres of land at village Ramtala which was recorded in his name. However this witness has stated that, he cannot give the description of these lands which were received by Bawa Ram from his ancestors. 13. In further cross-examination of this witness, when this witness was asked to give specific details of the Khasra number, rakba of the were received by Bawa Ram from his ancestors this witness has stated that he cannot give the exact position of the numbers of those Khasras and areas of the land. In a further detailed cross-examination of this witness he admits that since 1983 he was out of his village in connection with employment. The suggestion that Bawa Ram had purchased land at village Ramtala, Devarbodh, Bhilaigarh, Baansurkuli and Tadapara from his own income have been denied. Importantly this witness was given a suggestion that the property situated at Mowa (Raipur) and Kanker are joint family property. A suggestion was also given to this witness which has been denied that the property situated at Mowa (Raipur) and Kanker were purchased from the income of joint family. 14. The other witnesses of the plaintiff include the villagers and his own sister Kheekh Bai who has been examined as PW-5 and has also supported the case of the plaintiff and according to her, the property in dispute belongs to the joint family. In her affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, she has stated that their ancestors are the original residents of village Charoda, Tahsil Kasdol and the property situated at village Charoda was partitioned amongst her father and his brothers. She has further deposed that out of the sale proceeds, all the houses and agricultural lands at village Charoda were purchased by her father from the income derived by the property so purchased including the house and land at Bhilaigarh, Devarbodh, Baansurkuli, Tadapara and Ramtala. In her cross-examination however she could not give the exact number of the land and area which was subjected to partition amongst her father and brothers. In her cross-examination however she could not give the exact number of the land and area which was subjected to partition amongst her father and brothers. Thus this witness though does not give specific details of the properties with reference to their number and area but her statement is that the entire property at village Charoda was joint family property which was received by her father alone and all the properties at village Ramtala is a joint family property which is not subjected to partition. The other witness to the plaintiff are the villagers who have supported the case of the plaintiff. 15. One of the important documentary evidence led by the plaintiff is based on record of rights (As per Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954) of the MP. Land Revenue Code, 1954) which has been proved by Ex. P-1. This document proves that Bawa Ram held properties jointly along with his mother and two brothers namely Hannu and Ram Singh. These properties which fell into share of Bawa Ram have been shown against his name. Name of Hannu and Ram Singh has been stuck off. Correspondingly, lumber of properties situated at various Khasra numbers have been stuck off indicating that those lands fell to share of other shareholders. The land which falls to the share of Bawa Ram continued in the revenue record along with his mother. This proves that Bawa Ram held property along with his brothers and mother and it was not his self acquired property. At this juncture it is relevant to deal with the submission of counsel for the respondent that the properties purchased and sold by Bawa Ram at village Charoda were not of joint family property but part of it was joint family property and a part of it was self acquired by him. This argument of learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted because this is against the inference drawn directly following the entries made in this regard as Ex. P-1. Once the Khasra Nos. and areas of land have been shown in the document which was earlier recorded in the name of as many as four persons and later on names of some of these persons were stuck off, the presumption would be that right from the beginning it was held jointly by all. P-1. Once the Khasra Nos. and areas of land have been shown in the document which was earlier recorded in the name of as many as four persons and later on names of some of these persons were stuck off, the presumption would be that right from the beginning it was held jointly by all. The plaintiff has placed on record the sale deed of sale and purchase of various lands on Ex. P-2 and P-5 by Bawa Ram situated at village Charoda. The land held by him at village Charoda was definitely the ancestral property which was received by him upon partition. Sale deeds Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8 are all purchases made by him outside village Charoda. Ex. P-9, 10 and 11 are the sale deeds which show that Bawa Ram had been selling the land at Ramtala. These sales have taken place in the year 1989, 2004 and 2010. 16. The defendants have also filed various sale deeds to show that Bawa Ram in the course of time had purchased properties at different villages. All these properties have been described in the plaint as joint family properties. 17. It is therefore required to be seen that whether Bawa Ram had any other source of income than the agricultural activity. Argument has been raised by counsel for the respondent to the specific pleading in para 25 that Bawa Ram was earning from other sources of income. We however find that Bawa Ram has not entered into the witness box. Bawa Ram was the best witness to depose before the court that he not only earned from agricultural activity but also from other occupation as has been suggested in the written statement. Though Teerath Ram in para 5 of his evidence has stated that Bawa Ram was engaged in various other occupations and from it he used to earn income, as Bawa Ram himself has not entered the witness box and there is no other clinching evidence or any other independent witness who had business transaction with Bawa Ram or any other documentary evidence to show that Bawa Ram was engaged in any other occupation, we are of the view that Bawa Ram had no other source of income except agricultural income. The only property which was resting in the hands of Bawa Ram was at village Charoda which he was initially holding jointly with his brothers and mother, upon partition, he received a part of it and then he started selling and purchasing the properties. In the absence of there being any other source of income of Bawa Ram it has to be presumed that all the purchases which were made by Bawa Ram were only out of sale proceeds from the sale of ancestral property which fell to his share or from the income derived from the agricultural activity carried out on those lands which are situated at village Charoda or thereafter purchased at Ramtala and other villages. From this analysis it would also be clear that the entire property which was recorded in the name of Bawa Ram was thus the property of joint family though it was being dealt with by Bawa Ram, he being the eldest in the family and being father of Teerath Ram. 18. There is additional weight and reason for us to hold that the property was a joint family property. The plaintiff have placed on record the reply to notices sent by Bawa Ram, Teerath Ram and Angan Bai as Ex. P-21 and 22. In reply to registered notice Ex. 18. There is additional weight and reason for us to hold that the property was a joint family property. The plaintiff have placed on record the reply to notices sent by Bawa Ram, Teerath Ram and Angan Bai as Ex. P-21 and 22. In reply to registered notice Ex. P-20 Bawa Ram and Smt. Angan Bai it has been stated as below: ^^03- ;g fd vkids }kjk Ásf"kr uksfVl dh dafMdk 03 dk ;g dFku fd esjs i{kdkj ,d lkFk fuokl djrs gS] dks NksM+dj 'ks"k dFku xyr ,oa >wBh rF;ksa ij vk/kfjr gksus ls vLohdkj gSA D;ksafd vkidk i{kdkj us esjs i{kdkjksa ds lkFk dHkh Hkh e/kqj lcU/k ugha j[kk] D;ksafd vkidk i{kdkj viuh iRuh ds dgs vuqlkj vius ekrk&firk dk lsok lqJqok dHkh ugha fd;kA lkFk gh vkids i{kdkj ges'kk esjs i{kdkjksa dks caVokjk ds uke ij ges'kk ÁrkfM+r djrs jgk gSA rFkk lekt Áeq[kksa le/kh fl;ku o vU; fj'rsnkjksa dh le>kbZ'k dks dgh ugha ekuk gSA bl ckr ls badkj gS fd esjs i{kdkj Jhefr vkaxu ckbZ ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us vius i{kdkj dks ÁrkfM+r fd;k gS rFkk bl ckr badkj gS fd mlus vkids i{kdkj dh eku dks /kdsy dj mudh tka?k dh gM~Mh dks rksM+ fn;kA ;fn ,slk gksrk fd vkids i{kdkj dks ekrk th esjs i{kdkju ds ikl ugha j[krh] okLrfodrk ;g gS fd vkids i{kdkj dh iRuh us jk;iqj esa viuh lkl ¼vkids ifjokj dh ekrk th½ dks ?kj esa j[kus ls badkj dj fn;k] ftlds dkj.k bykt ds rqjar ckn okil caxykHkkBk fcykbZx<+ esa vkdj esjs i{kdkjksa ds lkFk fuokl dj jgh gSA** 19. Thus in reply to notice, the jointness of the family is admitted by Bawa Ram and Angan Bai. Thus in reply to notice, the jointness of the family is admitted by Bawa Ram and Angan Bai. Importantly in the averments of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 it has been stated thus: ^^04- ;g fd vkids }kjk Ásf"kr uksfVl dh dafMdk 04 dk dFku xyr gksus ls vLohdkj gSA D;ksafd vkids i{kdkj us la;qDr ifjokj esa jgrs gq, la;qDr ifjokj dh vkils viuh iRuh o cPpksa ds uke ij eksok o dchj uxj esa tehu [kjhndj edku cuk;k gS] ftl ij esjs i{kdkjku dk Hkh cjkcj dk gd o vf/kdkj gSA vkids i{kdkj us dkadsj esa Hkh tehu [kjhndj edku cuk;k gSA lkFk gh esjs i{kdkj us viuh vk; ls cM+s HkkbZ gksus ds ukrs tks Hkh tehu [kjhnk o vius firk ckokjke ds uke ij Ø; fd;k gS] mDr tehu gh orZeku esa jktLo vfHkys[k esa ntZ gSA vkids i{kdkj dh iSr`d laifRr jeryk esa Fkh] ftls foØ; djds vkids i{kdkj dh i<+kbZ ukSdjh o vkids i{kdkj dh iq=h e/kqfjdk dh fookg esa [kpZ dj fn;k gSA 05- ;g fd vkids }kjk Ásf"kr uksfVl dh dafMdk 05 dk dFku xyr gksus ds vLohdkj gSA D;ksafd esjs i{kdkj ckokjke us Hkwfe foØ; djrs le; ÁkIr jkf'k dks vius nksuksa iq=ksa dks ckaV fn;k Fkk] ftlesa ls vk/kk fgLlk vkids i{kdkj dks ÁkIr gqvk gSA blds ckn vkids i{kdkj esa esjs i{kdkj Jhefr vkaxu ckbZ ds ifr rhjFk jke /k`rygjs ds e/; 'ks"k Hkwfe dk caVokjk fnukad 13-11-2010 dks xzke iVsy nqtjke efV;k okys rFkk lgljke /k`rygjs] dsnkj l<okjke] efgykax jeryk] ckcwyky lsodjke] Hkkmjke /k`rygjs pjkSnk dh mifLFkfr esa bdkjkjukek dk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k ftlesa vkids i{kdkj o esjs i{kdkj ds cM+s iq= o ifr rhjFkjke /k`rygjs us Hkh viuk&viuk gLrk{kj fd;k gSA esjs i{kdkj ckokjke }kjk fu"ikfnr cSukek vkids i{kdkj dh tkudkjh esa gS rFkk Áfri{k dh vk/kk fgLlk ÁkIr fd;k gSA 06- ;g fd vkids }kjk Ásf"kr uksfVl dh dafMdk 06 dk dFku xyr gksus ls vLohdkj gS D;ksafd mDr foØ; i= vkids i{kdkj dh tkudkjh esa gSA rFkk foØ; dh ÁfrQy dh jkf'k esa ls fgLlk ÁkIr fd;k gSA blfy, mDr foØ; i= vkids i{kdkj ds Åij ca/kudkjh gSA 07- ;g fd vkids }kjk Ásf"kr uksfVl dh dafMdk 07 dk dFku xyr gksus ls vLohdkj gSA D;ksafd esjs i{kdkj vkaxu ckbZ esgurh ,oa O;olkf;d efgyk gS rFkk mudh ifr dh o ifjokj dh vk; ls mDr cSukek dk ÁfrQy Ánku dh x;h gS] ftlesa ls vk/kk jkf'k rks esjs i{kdkj ds ifr dks ÁkIr gqvk vkSj vk/kk jkf'k vkids i{kdkj dks ÁkIr gqvk gS] blfy;s esjs i{kdkj ckokjke ds [kkrk esa tek gksus dk Á'u mRiUu ugha gksrkA** In the concluding paragraph of the reply it has been stated thus: ^^;g fd vkids i{kdkj ds iq= o muds llqj us iath;d dk;kZy; fcykbZx<+ esa cSukek dh ÁfrQy dh jkf'k esa vf/kd fgLlk ÁkIr djus ds fy;s esjs i{kdkj ckokjke ls ekjihV fd;k rFkk 4&5 dksjk dkxtksa esa vaxwBk fu'kkuh yxok;sA vr% vki yksxksa dks bl uksfVl tokc ds tfj;s vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd vki vius i{kdkj dks le>kbZ'k nsosa fd mUgksaus dwV jfpr nLrkost dk lgkjk ysdj esjs i{kdkj dks uqdlku igaqpk;k gS] blfy;s og fnukad 13-11-2010 ds caVokjk bdjkjukek ds vk/kkj ij jktLo vfHkys[k esa viuk uke ntZ djok;sa ;fn esjs i{kdkj dks fdlh Ádkj dh vkfFkZd uqdlkuh gksxk] mlds fy;s vkidk i{kdkj ftEesnkj gksxkA** 20. From the reading of the aforesaid reply of the notice it is clear that defendant Bawa Ram and Angan Bai have admitted the entire property to be joint family property. Not only they admitted that the property was joint family property but also that they were residing jointly. However, dispute was to the manner in which the plaintiff was claiming his own share. Not only this, there is a mention of batwaranama dated 13.11.2010 which clearly mentions that the property in dispute was a joint family property but there existed some amount of dispute with regard to partition. In fact in the concluding paragraph of the reply it has been stated that the plaintiff took his share on the basis of agreement of partition dated 13.11.2010. 21. Similarly in reply to registered notice Ex. P-22 same story has been repeated that a partition has already taken place between the brothers on 13.11.2010 in the presence of witnesses, signed by Teerath Ram, Bhagwat and other witnesses. The text and tenor of this notice is also that the property was held by them jointly and there had been a partition to which the plaintiff was not agreeable. It is thus clear that the property was joint family property but claim was resisted on case on so called partition deed dated 13.11.2010 but after filing of the suit they turned around and started disputing the jointness of the property by taking advantage of the fact that all the sale proceeds were made in the name of Bawa Ram. We have already noticed that Bawa Ram had not entered the witness box as against plaintiffs case that Bawa Ram received the share at village Charoda and it came to his hands as ancestral property. Further, Teerath Ram has also deposed in his evidence that there had been a meeting earlier and it was agreed in principle to have partition done. Further, Teerath Ram has also deposed in his evidence that there had been a meeting earlier and it was agreed in principle to have partition done. What has been stated by him in para 50 and 51 of his evidence is relevant and is described herein below: ^^50- ;g dguk xyr gS fd tc vkaxu ckbZ dks ckokjke us viuh laifRr csp fn, rc Hkkxor dks irk pyus ij mlds }kjk fookn fd;k x;k rc mlds }kjk fookn fd;k x;k fd dSls laifRr csp nhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tc fookn gqvk rks rc lgljke dh cSBd xkao esa gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ml cSBd esa lkjh laifRr ds caVokjs dks ysdj ppkZ gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ml ehfVax esa ;g r; gqvk Fkk fd jk;iqj dk edku Hkkxor ysxk vkSj fcykbZx<+] ckalmjdqyh dk edku eq>s feysxkA lk{kh Lor% dgrk gS fd ml cSBd esa ;g r; gqvk Fkk fd tgka&tgka ftldh tehu gS mldks ,df=r djds mldks VqdM+ksa esa dj fn;k tk;sA 51- ;g dguk lgh gS fd nsojcksM+ dks ,d [ksr esjs eka cki ds ijofj'k ds fy;s fn;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ckdh tehuksa dks nks Hkkxksa esa caVokjk gksus dh ckr dgh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ckalmjdqyh dk ,d edku [khd ckbZ dks nsus dh ckr gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd cSBd esa tks ckr gqbZ mldks ,d bdjkjukek ds :i esa fy[kk x;k FkkA lk{kh Lor% dgrk gS fd Hkkxor us viuh tehu tks dkadsj esa gS mldks NksM+ fn;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd caVokjs ds vk/kkj ij [kkrk foHkktu dh dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZ FkhA** 22. In view of above, it is clear that the property in dispute was undoubtedly a joint family property and there had been certain disputes with regard to mode and manner of partition. The aforesaid overwhelming evidence on record proves that the property in dispute was a joint family property of he family members i.e. plaintiff Bhagwat Prasad, Teerath Ram and their mother Sumitra Bai. 23. At this juncture, we also need to mention here that the amendment carried out in the Hindu Succession Act 2005, daughter would also be entitled to take equal share as one of the co-parcenary. This is not an issue directly arising for consideration in this court. For passing the effective decree of partition this mention is necessary. 23. At this juncture, we also need to mention here that the amendment carried out in the Hindu Succession Act 2005, daughter would also be entitled to take equal share as one of the co-parcenary. This is not an issue directly arising for consideration in this court. For passing the effective decree of partition this mention is necessary. In the ultimate conclusion, we are of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the properties in dispute were the joint family property. 24. In absence of there being any consent of other joint holders of the joint family property, sale deed Ex. P-17, 18 & 19 executed by Bawa Ram in favour of Angan Bai were, therefore, void and inoperative in respect of share of other shareholders. It would be valid to the extent of share of Bawa Ram. We accordingly hold so. 25. In the result appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/decree is set aside and it is held that the property in dispute shown in the plaint was the joint family property of Bawa Ram, Bhagwat Prasad, Teerath Ram and their mother Sumitra Bai. Kheekh Bai being sister would also be entitled to share in the property. During the course of pendency of the appeal, both Bawa Ram and his wife Sumitra Bai have died. On the date when Bawa Ram sold the property to defendant No. 3 Angan Bai vide sale deed Ex. P-17, 18 and 19 it was jointly held by Bawa Ram, his wife Sumitra Bai, sons Bhagawat and Teerath Ram as also daughter Kheekh Bai. Thus on that day each of them were entitled to 1/5th share of the property. The sale deed Ex. P-17, 18 & 19 would therefore be valid only to the extent of 1/5th that being the share of Bawa Ram. In respect of share of all other shareholders the sale would be null and inoperative. 26. The property would accordingly be liable to partitioned amongst the plaintiff Bhagwat, surviving defendant Teerath Ram, his sister Kheekh Bai and also Angan Bai because she had purchased the share of Bawa Ram. As Sumitra Bai has died, her 1/5th share in the property would be liable to be partitioned equally amongst the surviving shareholders namely Bhagwat Prasad, Teerath Ram and Kheekh Bai. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs throughout and the decree be drawn accordingly. 27. As Sumitra Bai has died, her 1/5th share in the property would be liable to be partitioned equally amongst the surviving shareholders namely Bhagwat Prasad, Teerath Ram and Kheekh Bai. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs throughout and the decree be drawn accordingly. 27. On the basis of the appellate decree the trial court shall order necessary proceedings to be drawn as provided under Order XX Rule 18 CPC for submission of report and a partition by metes and bounds as per the decree drawn by this court.