JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 5-10-2016 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in civil suit No.227-A/2015 whereby the suit was dismissed. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was filed by four sisters namely; Smt. Chameli Koushik, Smt. Shanti Devi Bhardwaj, Smt. Usha Bai Narmada & Smt. Sandhya Koushil against one Smt. Koushilya Bai Patel, defendant No.1, who had purchased the property from the defendant No.2 Om Prakash Goutam, brother of the plaintiffs. 3. Case of the plaintiffs was that they are the joint owners of land bearing khasra No.184 admeasuring 5.90 acres situated at village Nirtu, PH No.33, RI Circle Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. According to the plaintiffs, the said land was purchased by the defendant No.1 on the basis of forged power of attorney dated 9-2-2015 alleged to have been executed by four sisters (plaintiffs) in favour of brother (defendant No.2). The suit was filed to declare the said sale deed as nullity and possession was also claimed for from the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs further stated that they are in possession of the land and were doing the agricultural activities on the said land. According to the plaintiffs, on the power of attorney dated 9-2-2015 photographs of some other persons were affixed other than the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2 and the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs stated that they have never executed any power of attorney in favour of their brother/defendant No.2. The plaintiffs also stated that while they sowed the crop over the suit land, in the month of August, 2015 the defendant No.1 took over the land forcibly on the basis of sale deed dated 11-3-2015 (Ex.P/1). 4. The defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Subsequently, they proceeded ex parte. The defendant No.1 has stated that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. She also stated that after payment of sale consideration, she came into possession, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 5. 4. The defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Subsequently, they proceeded ex parte. The defendant No.1 has stated that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. She also stated that after payment of sale consideration, she came into possession, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence came to a finding that the sale deed executed by the brother (defendant No.2) in favour of the defendant No.1 (purchaser) on the basis of forged power of attorney would be invalid in respect of share held by the plaintiffs (sisters), meaning thereby the sale of share of defendant No.2 was held to be valid. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse inasmuch as the trial Court came to a finding that the sale deed was executed by the brother on the basis of forged power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the sisters in his favour, therefore, the entire sale deed would go. He would further submit that even otherwise, the purchaser cannot be put in possession of the suit property in its entirety and only recourse left to the defendant No.1 (purchaser) was to file a suit for partition when joint property was purchased by her as no partition has ever taken place between the brother and sisters. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, per contra, would submit that in any case the extent of share which has been sold by the brother cannot be said to be invalid and he has vested right to sell his share of property. He would further submit that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is well merited, which do not call for call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. Ex.P/1 is the sale deed. Om Prakash (defendant No.2), brother of the plaintiffs, on the basis of power of attorney by the plaintiffs, has shown them as seller and executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Said sale deed contains a document Form B-1, which shows that the subject property bearing khasra No.184 was held by Omprakash (defendant No.2) along with four sisters (plaintiffs). Said sale deed contains a document Form B-1, which shows that the subject property bearing khasra No.184 was held by Omprakash (defendant No.2) along with four sisters (plaintiffs). The learned trial Court in its judgment has held that the plaintiffs were able to prove the fact that the sale deed was executed on the basis of forged power of attorney by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 and further held that the property to the extent executed by the brother would be valid. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535 while making distinction between void and voidable document has held that an alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid and adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. 11. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding of Court that the property sold to the extent of share of the brother would be valid appears to be justified. Even otherwise, the brother has vested joint right to execute the sale deed. 12. Now the other question comes to fore as to what would be the purchaser’s right to hold possession. Admittedly, there is no physical partition of an undivided landed property whereas the cosharer, one of the brothers, has put into possession the purchaser in respect of the property. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramdas v Sitabai & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2735 , had an occasion to discuss this issue wherein it was held that a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. The Supreme Court further held thus in paras 15 & 16 : 15) Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao Vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao Vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors. [ AIR 1966 SC 470 ], wherein this Court stated as follows: "Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a co-parcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which, on partition, might be found to fall to the share of the co-parcener whose share he had purchased." 16. It may be mentioned herein that the aforesaid findings and the conclusions were recorded by the Supreme Court by placing reliance upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors. [ AIR 1953 SC 487 ], wherein this Court held as under:- "All that (vendee) purchased at the execution sale, was the undivided interest of co-parcener in the joint property. He did not acquire title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase. He could work-out his rights only by a suit for partition and his right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in his favour. (Emphasis added) 14. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash Pati Devi vs. Bhubneshwari Devi and Others, 1984 AIR (SC) 1802 has laid down that what is purchaser’s right when the joint family property is purchased. It held that he has the right to file a general suit for partition against the members of the joint family and, indeed, that may be the proper remedy for him to adopt to effectuate his purchase. 15. In the light of aforesaid principles, it is vivid that the purchaser has taken over possession of the suit land on the basis of sale made by one co-sharer. 16. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the purchaser cannot be put in possession by one co-sharer and undivided interest in the joint family property or share of the co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession. 17. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree dated 5-10-2016 is set aside. 16. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the purchaser cannot be put in possession by one co-sharer and undivided interest in the joint family property or share of the co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession. 17. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree dated 5-10-2016 is set aside. The present appeal is allowed to the extent that the plaintiffs would be entitled to get possession of the suit land in its entirety from the defendant No.1 and they are required to be put in possession. 18. It goes without saying that the purchaser (defendant No.1) would have a right to file suit for partition in accordance with law. 19. A decree be drawn accordingly.