VIJAY POPAT DHANGAR Vs. JIJABRAO DEVCHAND PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original plaintiff has preferred this appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated January 27, 1987 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule dismissing Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1983. THE suit was instituted by plaintiff through his guardian mother challenging the sale-deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 on May 6, 1978 on the ground that there was no legal necessity for respondent No.2 to dispose of the property. THE land in dispute is part of Gat No.36, situated at Village Bhirud in Dhule Taluka of Dhule District and admeasures 16 acres. THE land is Jirayat land and belonged to respondent No.2 who was karta of the joint family consisting of Popat, his wife Vimalbai, his minor son Vijay, who is the plaintiff, and two daughters Prabhavati and Shakuntala. On November 27, 1975, Popat executed agreement of sale (Exh.66) for sale of 16 acres of land out of Gat No.36 for total consideration of Rs.20,000/-. THE part payment of Rs.8,000/- was made by cheques. THE agreement of sale recites that possession was handed over to respondent No.1. THE sale-deed was executed by respondent No.2 on May 6, 1978 and the registered sale-deed is at Exh.67. THE sale-deed recites that the land was sold for marriage expenses of daughters of respondent No.2 and for repayment of loan secured as well as the expenses to be incurred for agricultural operations. THE plaintiff was born in year 1976 and was hardly two years old at the time of execution of sale-deed. THE plaintiff through his guardian mother filed suit on September 29, 1983 to challenge the legality of the sale-deed on the ground that there was no legal necessity for respondent No.2 to dispose of the property in which the minor has interest.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent No.1 claiming that there was legal necessity for respondent No.2 to dispose of the part of the land of Gat No.36. THE respondent No.1 claimed that the financial condition of respondent No.1 was deteriorating from time to time and respondent No.2 was required to dispose of the property for celebrating the marriages of his two daughters, for the medical expenses of his mother and even for the funeral expenses of his mother. THE respondent No.2 filed written statement and adopted the contentions raised by respondent No.1. On these pleadings, the Trial Judge framed the requisite issues and the parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. THE plaintiff's guardian mother Vimalbai entered the witness-box and examined two other witnesses Bhikanlal and Bhoju to suggest that the consideration paid by respondent No.1 was inadequate. THE respondent No.1 entered the witness-box and examined Shamji who was attesting witness, both for agreement of sale (Exh.66) and sale-deed (Exh.67). THE Trial Judge, on consideration of evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit property was joint family property and there was legal necessity for respondent No.2 to alienate the property in favour of respondent No.1. THE Trial Judge held that in view of evidence on record, the transaction of sale is binding on the plaintiff. THE Trial Judge also held that the suit was barred by law of limitation. On the strength of this findings, the Trial Judge dismissed the suit and that has given rise to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) SHRI Shah made a faint submission to urge that the consideration paid by respondent No.1 for purchase of an area of 16 acres is inadequate and that indicates that the sale-deed was not for legal necessity. It is not possible to entertain the contention because the sale-deed is not challenged on the ground of inadequacy of price or that the nature of transaction was not a sale but merely a mortgage or as a security for repayment of the loan. The sale-deed is challenged on the ground that the respondent No.2 has alienated the property without legal necessity. Apart from this consideration, the evidence clearly indicates that the price of Rs.20,000/- paid for purchase of 16 acres of Jirayat land is not inadequate. The land is situated at a place where rain is a novelty and in such circumstances, it is futile to urge that the price was inadequate. Vimalbai, save and except asserting that the income was to the extent of Rs.5,000/- p.a. did not produce any record to substantiate the same. In our judgment, the challenge to the sale-deed is without any merit and the Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit. The decision of the Trial Judge is not required to be disturbed and appeal must fail.