BIKKAR SINGH Vs. JALAUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, judgment of trial Court as well as of first Appellate Court are being assailed. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.8.1979 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession declaring the impugned transactions of sales to be void and further restraining the Jugraj Singh, defendant from any alienation of the remaining land described in the heading of the plaint, having observed that Jugraj Singh, defendant has absolutely no legal necessity to alienate the coparcenary land.

(2.) First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part upheld the finding of the trial Court that there was absolutely no legal necessity to alienate the coparcenary property, however, modified the decree to the extent that suit shall stands dismissed to the extent of the 1/3rd share in the entire coparcenary property which would have fall in the share of Jugraj Singh, vendor defendant.

(3.) This second appeal was filed way back in 1981. A perusal of the memo of appeal shows that no substantial question of law has been formulated therein as required under Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Not only this, when this appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 3.6.1981, no substantial question of law was formulated by this Court too as required under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.