Judgment : (Rajani Dubey, J.) Challenge in this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gariyaband in Civil Suit No.26A/2015 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the trial court.) 02. The admitted facts in this case are that Defendant No.1 Ghondul Sahu is son of Mukundi Sahu. Plaintiff Bisan Sahu, defendant No.2 Doman Sahu and defendant No.5 Bhanupratap Sahu are sons of defendant No.1 whereas minor defendant No.3 Chhatrapal is son of defendant No.2 Doman Lal Sahu and defendant No.4 Smt. Geeta bai is wife of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 Ghondul has only 0.55 hectare of agricultural ancestral land of Khasra No.1670 situate at Village-Teka. On 13.5.2015 defendant No.1 Ghondul sold 0.360 hectare of land bearing Khasra No.291 situate at Village-Loharsi in favour of defendant No.2 Doman Sahu through registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.9,51,300/-. On the same day, defendant No.1 also executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 Bhanupratap Sahu in respect of land bearing Khasra No.265, area 0.270 hectare situate at Village-Loharshi for a sale consideration of Rs.7,13,500/-. Further, on 28.9.2015 defendant No.1 sold land bearing P.H.No.17/33, khasra No.1671/2, area 0.14 hectare and Khasra No.1670, area 0.550 hectare situate at Village-Teka for a sale consideration of Rs.12,22,500/- to defendant no.3 Chhatrapal through registered sale deed. 03. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 5 are members of the same family. Name of defendant No.1 has been recorded as owner of the ancestral property which is in fact the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2 & 5 and as such, they all have equal 1/4 share in the said property. However, on the influence of defendants No. 2 & 5, father of the plaintiff i.e. defendant No.1 would not take care of him and even after marriage, he was separated from the family members and hence he started living separately and was maintaining his family somehow. In the year 2014- 15 when the plaintiff claimed his share in the ancestral property, it was refused by defendant No.1. In the year 2014- 15 when the plaintiff claimed his share in the ancestral property, it was refused by defendant No.1. A social meeting was also held in this regard where looking to the act of the defendants No.1, 2 & 5 they were ostracized by the society. Being aggrieved, they prepared registered sale deeds on 13.5.2015 worth Rs.9,51,300/- in favour of defendant No.2 and another sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 worth Rs.7,13,500/- and on 28.9.2015 also prepared a registered sale deed whereby certain lands were sold in favour of defendant No.3. These sale deeds were executed with a view to grab share of the plaintiff. Based on these sale deeds, names of defendant No.2 Domal Sahu and defendant No.5 Bhanupratap Sahu were recorded in the revenue records in respect of land situate at Village-Loharsi but the name of minor defendant No.3 Chhatrapal has not been recorded in respect of land situate at Village-Teka sold to him. The plaintiff had raised objections at the time of mutation on the basis of these sale deeds. Hence he filed a suit for declaration that all these three sale deeds are illegal and void, not binding on him, he is entitled for 1/4 share in the suit property, defendants No. 1 to 5 be permanently injuncted from selling, transferring, alienating or mortgaging the suit property in any manner till conclusion of the partition proceedings and he be also granted mesne profit @ Rs.1 lac per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of partition from defendants No. 1 to 5. 04. Defendants No.1 to 5 in their written statement denying all the adverse averments contended that the entire suit land is not the ancestral property. In fact, the only ancestral agricultural land is bearing Khasra No.1670, area 0.55 hectare situate at Village-Teka. So far as remaining lands are concerned, the same are the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. The plaintiff was married around 15 years back by defendant No.1 and since he was raising disputes and disturbing peace of the family, he was given a separate house to live in where the plaintiff is still residing. Defendants No. 2 & 5 have duly got a house constructed on their own cost and are residing along with their family members. Defendant No.1 is also residing alongwith his wife in the said house. Defendants No. 2 & 5 have duly got a house constructed on their own cost and are residing along with their family members. Defendant No.1 is also residing alongwith his wife in the said house. As defendant No.1 and his wife Janibai were in need of money for medical treatment as also for repaying the loan, they discussed about sale of ancestral agricultural land bearing Khasra No.1670, area 0.550 hectare situate at Village-Teka to someone else, on which defendant No.2 Doman Sahu expressed his willingness to purchase the same and therefore, defendant No.1 sold the said land to him after obtaining full consideration thereof. The remaining land at Villages-Loharsi and Teka bearing Khasra Nos. 265, 291, 1671/2 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 Ghondul Ram and as such, the plaintiffs have no right to question transfer or sale thereof. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. 05. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties framed as many as 08 issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.8.2018. Hence this appeal by the defendants. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the learned trial Court wrongly held that the suit property is the ancestral property whereas except land bearing Khasra No.1670, area 0.55 hectare, the other lands are self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and it has been duly proved, however, learned trial Court wrongly held that the other property was also purchased from the money of joint holding property which is totally contrary to the oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff has nowhere stated in the plaint that his father-defendant No.1 purchased the said property from the money derived from ancestral property. The findings recorded by learned trial Court declaring the sale deeds in question as null and void are totally contrary to the provisions of law and the evidence available on record. The plaintiff in his plaint has nowhere stated about the three registered sale deed by which defendant No.1 purchased the land. Learned trial Court acted with material irregularities and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 07. The plaintiff in his plaint has nowhere stated about the three registered sale deed by which defendant No.1 purchased the land. Learned trial Court acted with material irregularities and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 07. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff supporting the impugned judgment and decree would submit that the learned trial court upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit of the plaintiff which warrants no interference by this Court. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 18.1.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in FA No.18/2019 in the matter of Vaman Sharma and others Vs. Smt. Namita Baidhmutha and others . 08. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/State would submit that from bare perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed thereto and the impugned judgment and decree, it would be evident that dispute is between the appellants/defendants and respondent No.1/plaintiff and there is no cause of action against respondent No.2/State which is a formal party. No substantial and effective relief has been sought by the appellants against respondent No.2. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, learned trial Court framed eight issues and main issues are Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 which are as under: 11. The main objection of the appellants/defendants is that the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded about three registered sale deeds by which defendant No.1 purchased the land and therefore, the findings of learned trial Court are erroneous and contrary to the settled principle of law. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the impugned judgment and decree are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and as such, are liable to be set aside. It is clear from the statement of appellant/defendant No.1 Ghondul Sahu (DW-1) that he admitted that Mukundi Sahu was his father, his land was situated at Village-Teka, after death of his father, the land was recorded in his name which is being cultivated by his sons and himself. He also admitted that he is living jointly with all of his sons. He also admitted that when he purchased land from Goverdhan and Chintaram, at that time his sons were living with him in a joint family. He also admitted that he is living jointly with all of his sons. He also admitted that when he purchased land from Goverdhan and Chintaram, at that time his sons were living with him in a joint family. He also admitted that except agricultural income, he had no other source of income. 12. Learned trial court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, especially considered the admission of appellant/defendant No.1 Ghondul Sahu, father of the plaintiff and other defendants, who admitted that all lands belong to his father and after death of his father, his name was recorded in respect of that property in the revenue records, they are living jointly and from agricultural income he purchased other lands in name of his sons. Learned trial Court decided Issues no. 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit property is ancestral property and accordingly while deciding Issue No.4 held that the plaintiff has 1/4th share over the said ancestral property. 13. This Court in the matter of Vaman Sharma (supra) after observing guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter, held in paras 17, 18 & 19 of its order as under: "17. Perusal of the sale deed in the context when compared to the principle laid down in the Hindu law do not synchronize or match to insulate that the sale was for legal necessity. In a result, when the sale deed appears to be for a personal need which envelop the share of the coparcenrs, the same cannot be sustained as a whole. 18. It would be apt to say that sale deed though was executed by taking into the sweep share of the coparceners, the seller also had a vested right to the extend of 1/4th share. If the sale is executed in excess of the power to transfer, a distinction can be drawn in between void and voidable sale as it cannot be stated that defendant No.2, since deceased, had no right to sell his part of the property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murugan Vs. Kesava Gounder (dead) through legal representatives (2019) 20 SCC 633 has followed the principle and quoted excerpts of Salmonds on Jurisprudence, 12" Edn.. at Para 15 which reads as thus: 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murugan Vs. Kesava Gounder (dead) through legal representatives (2019) 20 SCC 633 has followed the principle and quoted excerpts of Salmonds on Jurisprudence, 12" Edn.. at Para 15 which reads as thus: 15. Salmonds on jurisprudence, 12 Edn., has noticed the distinction between valid, void and voidable in the following passage: ....... A valid agreement is one which is fully operative in accordance with the intent of parties. A void agreement is one which entirely fails to receive legal recognition or santion, the declared will of the parties being wholly destitute of legal efficacy. A voidable agreement stands midway between these two cases. It is not a nullity, but its operation is conditional and not absolute." Therefore, a distinction can be made where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by the Court or authority, Consequently, the principle followed by the Supreme court in the matter of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh (1973) 2 SCC 535 , an alienation made by defendant No.2 in excess of the power to transfer would be, to the extent to the power would be invalid. In a result, the sale deed dated 11.7.2013. (Ex-P/1) in excess of 1/4th share in the property sold would stand invalid. 19. With respect to declaration and injunction, in view of the foregoing discussion above, we hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to protect their rights which is accrued to them by way of coparceners in the joint family property. Accordingly, we are inclined to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the above extent and also pass an order of injunction that with respect to the share of the property held by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 or her agent shall be restrained to interfere or disturb the possession of plaintiffs." 14. In light of above, in the present case also, respondent No.1/plaintiff proved the fact that the property in question belongs to his grand-father and appellant/defendant No.1 also admitted the fact that suit property belongs to his father and after his death, his name was recorded and he along with his sons were jointly cultivating the said land and from the agricultural income he purchased the other properties. The findings recorded by learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The findings recorded by learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in it warranting any interference. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed. 15. In the result, the appeal being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.