By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected an attempt made by the 1st defendant to produce an agreement of sale which was executed by the 2nd defendant and to which the 3r d plaintiff had also affixed her signature.
2. The Trial Court has observed and has stated that pursuant to the agreement of sale, a sale deed had been executed and since that sale deed had already been marked, there was no need for marking of the agreement of sale.
3. The instant suit is for partition. The purchaser 1st defendant, seeks to contend that the suit property which is the subject matter of partition was sold by both the mother and father i.e., 3rd plaintiff and 2nd defendant and he wants to evidence this fact by production of agreement of sale.
4. In my view merely because, the sale deed has been produced, that would not preclude the 1st : 4 : defendant to produce the agreement of sale which had executed prior to the execution of the sale deed.
5. The order made by the Trial Court cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
6. The Trial Court shall now permit the 1st defendant to mark the agreement of sale dated 27.07.2000. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- JUDGE