JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J 1. Heard. 2. The present appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 06.7.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.197A/2015 whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. Plaintiff No.1 Radha Bai, who claims the share through her mother India Bai @ Indira Bai in respect of the property bearing Khasra No.176/1 and 177/1 total land admeasuring 0.20 decimal that she is co-sharer of the land. The property was sold by one Jeet Ram Kosariya, defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 & 3 by sale deed dated 19.11.2007 (Ex-P/1). Total area admeasuring 5810 sq.ft. of Khasra No.176/1 & 177/1 situated at Mouja Talapara Bilaspur Patwari Halka No.22 was sold. Family tree is shown as under: 4. Radha Bai and Kamal Prashad filed a suit that said sale deed dated 19.11.2007 be declared as void. Facts would further show that the property initially belonged to Jamadar Satnami who had two wives. From one wife he had three sons, namely Bhangu, Sonsai and Ramsai. Sonsai had five children namely (i) Sukharu, (ii) Jashoda, (iii) Sahodara, (iv) Haiya Bai and (v) Bhukhan. Sukhru had three children namely (i) Jeetram (defendant No.1), (ii) Champa Bai and (iii) Jeetbai. The other wife of Jamadar is Suva Bai and she had three children namely (i) Neera, (ii) Chironja and (iii) Indiya @ Indira. Indiya @ Indira had one daughter namely Radha Bai, who is plaintiff No.1. herein. Kamal Prashad, H/o. Radha Bai though arrayed as plaintiff No.2, but no proprietary titled was vested on him. 5. The plaintiff No.1 Radha Bai contended that Jeetram, son of Sukhru, illegally sold the property to defendants 2 & 3 namely Pawan Kumar Khedia and Smt. Anita Khedia, therefore, she being the co-sharer, the sale deed be declared as void. The plaintiffs further pleaded that on earlier occasion defendant No.1 Jeetram claimed the entire property on the basis of Will dated 13.10.1995 to say that Ramsai, Bhangu and Jamadar have bequeathed the entire property to him, but the said Will was subject of the dispute in the civil suit wherein eventually on an appeal, the Court of District Judge vide order dated 19.6.2006 held the Will to be non-proved. The said finding of the appeal was the subject of challenge in the second appeal and the second appeal was compromised and thereafter the impugned sale was executed. 6. Per contra, defendant No.1 Jeeram did not file his written statement whereas purchaser/defendants 2 & 3 filed their statement. They raised preliminary pleading that though the sale was executed by Jeetram but other co-sharer including Indiya Bai, mother of Radha Bai, from whom Radha Bai was claiming her share, had accepted an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh and executed a deed of consent to support the sale. It was further stated that the plaintiff Radha Bai was bound by the conduct of the mother, consequently, she cannot maintain the suit for declaration. Further pleading was made that the sale deed having been executed for valuable consideration in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff being not in possession, the suit merely for declaration would not lie and pray for dismissal of the civil Suit. 7. The learned court on the basis of pleading framed five issues and held that Khasra No.176/1 & 177/1, which were the subject suit property, the plaintiff has failed to prove her ownership on that. The Court further held that the defence raised that the mother of the plaintiff, Indiya Bai has relinquished the share by accepting Rs.1.5 lakh was not proved and finding was in favour of sale deed and the suit was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that certain documents were exhibited on earlier litigation without any pleading, therefore, those evidence could not have been looked into by the court for want of pleading. He would further submit that even the finding on Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC that on earlier occasion, the plaintiff though has filed suit for same suit property, no issues were framed, consequently, the appellant/plaintiff could not have been taken by surprise in absence of pleading. He placed reliance in the matter of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Private Limited and Oths. (2015) 9 SCC 755 and judgment passed by this Court in FA No.220/2012 dated 03.8.2015 (Sardar Satpal Singh vs. Smt. Saroj Shukla & Ors.). He placed reliance in the matter of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Private Limited and Oths. (2015) 9 SCC 755 and judgment passed by this Court in FA No.220/2012 dated 03.8.2015 (Sardar Satpal Singh vs. Smt. Saroj Shukla & Ors.). He would further submit that Jeet Ram being one of the co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession and other co-sharers being not party, the sale deed could not be rectified by the decree of the Court. Therefore, the suit is liable to be decreed to the extend of the sale deed by declaration to that effect. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that series of evidence which are adduced would lead to show that the plaintiff was very well aware of the fact of existence of sale deed. He would further submit that Radha Bai, the plaintiff was claiming her rights through Indiya Bai and she herself has already relinquished her share by accepting the money from the defendants, which is proved by Ex-D/1. Therefore, the said document would be considered for the purpose of relinquishment. He would further submit that on earlier occasion too, the dispute in between the parties in respect of the said suit land came up for adjudication and travelled uptill the High Court wherein partition claim was not made. Therefore, subsequent claim of declaration of the suit or cancellation of the sale deed and consequential relief of injunction would not lie. He would further submit that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, therefore, mere declaration suit would not lie and judgment and decree of the Court below is well merited which does not call for any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence and the statement on record. 11. The genealogical tree in between the parties is not in dispute. Jeetram, the seller had not filed any written statement before the Court. The sale deed was executed by Jeetram in favour of defendants 2 & 3. According to the plaintiff, she is in occupation in respect of the land wherein, a small house exists for last 40 years and the total land has been shown as 0.020 acres. Defendant No.1-Jeet Ram is said to be the step-brother of the plaintiff and Jamadar Satnami was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she is in occupation in respect of the land wherein, a small house exists for last 40 years and the total land has been shown as 0.020 acres. Defendant No.1-Jeet Ram is said to be the step-brother of the plaintiff and Jamadar Satnami was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Jeet Ram had earlier filed suit for injunction against herself and mother claiming property in its entirety on the basis of a Will. Copy of judgment dated 06.5.2033 is marked as Ex-P/4. Said judgment and decree was the subject of the appeal in Civil Appeal No.1A/ 04 before the District Judge, Bilaspur by Indiya Bai and the plaintiff Radha Bai and Kamal Prashad. The appellate Court by its order dated 19.6.2006 gave a finding that Jeet Ram is the grand-son of Sonsai and after the death of Jamadar Satnami, the original property holder, the property would devolve on his sons namely Bhangu, Sonsai and Ramsai and three daughters namely Neera, Chironja and Indiya Bai. The Court further held that the Will dated 13.10.1995 on the basis of which Jeet Ram was claiming his absolute title was not proved. It is further held that over the suit land on area 20x10 feet a kacha house situates wherein Indiysa Bai and Radha Bai are in possession and on the date of filing of the suit on 04.6.1999, Jeet Ram, who filed the suit for permanent injunction was never in possession. Consequently, Jeetram being not in possession, further it was held that the suit was not tenable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. Voluminous documents produced before this Court includes the judgment and the earlier plaint. Document Ex-D/6 has been proved by Jashoda Bai (DW-1). Only first page of the plaint was produced which shows that Radha Bai had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Pawan Kumar, Smt. Anita Khedia and Jeet Ram. The said civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Third Civil Judge Class-II. What was the nature of the suit, for what it was filed and to which property it denotes or any other dispute what issue was involved in such suit is not clear, as the copy of the plaint was not produced. The said civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Third Civil Judge Class-II. What was the nature of the suit, for what it was filed and to which property it denotes or any other dispute what issue was involved in such suit is not clear, as the copy of the plaint was not produced. Therefore, for the same suit property in this case earlier civil suit was filed is not established by evidence. 13. Another civil suit (Ex-D/8) was filed by Indiya Bai, Neera Bai, Sahodara Bai, Haiya Bai and Bhukhan Bai against Jeet Ram for declaration. Copy of the plaint is marked as Ex-D/8. The record would show that the said civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.8.2007. Counter claim to the said suit was also compromised by Ex-D/15 on 04.11.2007. Said Civil suit was bearing No.550A/2005. Perusal of the compromise would show that the sisters made the statement that defendant No.1 therein, i.e. Jeet Ram agreed to give the shares to the sisters. Therefore, it was settled that sisters do not want to further prosecute the claim. 14. There is no evidence on record to this effect that subsequent to it the suit property was partitioned by metes and bounds. Thereafter the sale deed dated 19.11.2007 came into being by Ex-P/1 whereby, one of the co-sharers Jeet Ram executed sale deed in favour of defendants 2 & 3. The defendants came out with a defence that after the sale deed other co-sharers i.e. sisters Sahodara Bai, Haiya Bai and Bhukhan Bai gave their consent by Ex-D/4 to allow the purchasers to get their name recorded and the plaintiff’s mother gave consent by Ex-D/1 by accepting of Rs.1.5 lack to show that she consented to such sale deed. The said sahamati patra (Ex- D/1) is of 17.12.2007. Radha Bai (PW-1) was examined on 29.3.2016 and she has stated that Ex-D/1 did not contain the photograph of her mother India Bai and she had not accepted the amount. She stated that on the suit land she is in occupation on part of it and her mother had died 3-4 years back before 2016, i.e. date of examination. Radha Bai (PW-1) was examined on 29.3.2016 and she has stated that Ex-D/1 did not contain the photograph of her mother India Bai and she had not accepted the amount. She stated that on the suit land she is in occupation on part of it and her mother had died 3-4 years back before 2016, i.e. date of examination. There is no evidence on record to show that Ex-D/1 contains the photograph of mother of Radha Bai though objection was taken during the course of evidence, but those facts were not eventually substantiated by the defendants that the money was paid to Indiya Bai. 15. So on the basis of admissible evidence on record, it would show that subject property was sold by one of the co-sharer. The disclaimer or relinquishment deed of which the defendants bank upon to say it was executed by co-sharer is not a registered document. Document Ex-D/1 contains that consideration of Rs.1.5 lakh was paid. Being so, when the value of property was more than Rs.100/-, the document was required to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 and further being insufficiently stamped would not be admissible in evidence. The statement of the witness would show that the document though was exhibited but was not admitted in the evidence, as the document was not a primary evidence further no supportive secondary evidence is available to establish that it contains the photograph of Indiya Bai. Consequently, no inference can be drawn for collateral purpose too that mother of the plaintiff accepted the amount of Rs.1.5 lakh to forgo her share in the property. 16. Defence which has been raised by the respondents/defendants was not pleaded in the suit. It is settled preposition that in absence of any pleading, evidence cannot be looked into. The purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. It is settled preposition that in absence of any pleading, evidence cannot be looked into. The purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. The Court held that the pleadings 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 the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take out side to so that it may not be met another court to determine issue between the parties. For the sake of preposition as laid down, para 12 & 13 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachhau Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 are reproduced below:- “12. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings 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 the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take. 13. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when the defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.” 17. As has been held above, the sale deed was executed by one of the co-sharer alone. One co-sharer claims that he has put a vendee in possession by execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff on the part has asserted that she is in possession and Ramashankar Baghel (DW-4) in the cross examination admitted the suggestion that on the suit land, purchasers Pawan Khedia and Smt. Anita Khedia never resided. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramdas v Sitabai & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2735 had an occasion to discuss similar 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 cosharer 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 coparcener'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.” 19. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash Pati Devi v. 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. In the light of the settled preposition, therefore, one of the co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession. 20. Another aspect which falls for consideration in this case is that the plaintiff was non suited by invoking Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. The object of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is to ensure that no defendant is sued or vexed twice in regard to the same cause of action and second to prevent a plaintiff from splitting of claims and remedies based on the same cause of action. The object of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is to ensure that no defendant is sued or vexed twice in regard to the same cause of action and second to prevent a plaintiff from splitting of claims and remedies based on the same cause of action. The defendants tried to say that on the similar cause of action the plaintiff has brought the suit, but no pleading was made to this regard and no issues were framed. Only Ex-P/6 was placed on record which is an order sheet with a description of the parties. 21. In order to attract the bar under Order 2 Rule 2, it has to be specifically pleaded by the defendant in the suit and the trial Court should have specifically framed a specific issue in that regard wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different. The Supreme Court in case of Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Limited reported in (2014) 6 SCC 424 , has reiterated the principles laid down in case of Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta {(2010) 10 SCC141} and Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal { AIR 1964 SC 1810 } and had reaffirm the proposition which reads as under : “11. The bar of Order 2 Rule 2 comes into operation where the cause of action on which the previous suit was filed, forms the foundation of the subsequent suit; and when the plaintiff could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent suit, in the earlier suit; and both the suits are between the same parties. Furthermore, the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 must be specifically pleaded by the defendant in the suit and the trial court should specifically frame a specific issue in that regard wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different. This was held by this Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, which referred to the decision of this Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, wherein it was held that : “13.....'6. This was held by this Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, which referred to the decision of this Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, wherein it was held that : “13.....'6. In order that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out: (1) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. From this analysis it would be seen that the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on which the claim in the latter suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar.” 22. In the instant case neither the plea touching Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC exists nor any issues were framed. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have been taken by surprise so the finding on the order 2 Rule 2 CPC that the suit was barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC can be sustained and therefore, it is also set aside. 23. With respect to the declaration and consequential relief, the relief would show that the plaintiff has claimed cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.11.2007 to be nullity as also for declaration and possession. The pleading and evidence would show that the plaintiff maintained a stand that she is in the possession of part of the suit land. Evidence has come on record that there is no partition by metes and bounds between the co-sharers. One of the co-sharer has sold the suit property in its entirety including the share of the others. Therefore, the part of the property which was sold over and excess of the share of the defendant No.1 would be void and the documents would be partially invalid. One of the co-sharer has sold the suit property in its entirety including the share of the others. Therefore, the part of the property which was sold over and excess of the share of the defendant No.1 would be void and the documents would be partially invalid. The Supreme Court has laid down in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh (1973) 2 SCC 535 in para 5 as under:- “5……...We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An 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 interest in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings….” 24. Accordingly, we hold that sale deed dated 19.11.2007 (Ex-P/1) would be partially invalid to over and above the extent of the share held by defendant No.1. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 26. A decree be drawn accordingly.