As per case facts, original plaintiffs sought declaration that a sale deed executed by their brother (defendant 1) to a Trust (defendant 2) was void, alleging breach of an agreement ... to offer them the property first and fraudulent registration in a wrong district to conceal the sale. Lower courts partly decreed the suit. The High Court initially reversed this, finding the suit not maintainable due to lack of consequential relief. Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to reconsider maintainability and fraud. The question arose whether the sale deed was valid given the fraudulent registration under the Registration Act, and if the suit for mere declaration was maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act when plaintiffs claimed possession. Finally, the High Court, on remand, confirmed the lower courts' findings that notices were not served and fraud was committed in registration. It held the sale void and the suit maintainable as plaintiffs were in possession, dismissing the LPA.