ISHAR Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1984, passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, for joint possession, was decreed.

(2.) Minor plaintiff/respondent filed a suit, claiming that he was the adopted son of Chaju, defendant No. 1 and was entitled to succeed to the property of his adopted father. The case of the plaintiff was, that his adopted father Chaju Ram constituted a joint Hindu family with him, the property in the hands of Chaju Ram, defendant No. 1 his adopted father, was ancestral, therefore, he had no right to alienate it except for legal necessity. Pleaded case of the plaintiff was, that defendant No. 1 was drunkard, gambler and spendthrift, so he was requested not to sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate the property in dispute except for consideration and legal necessity. It may be noticed here that the suit for injunction as originally framed was not competent.

(3.) In the first instance the suit for injunction was filed. However, during the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1, sold the property in dispute to defendants No. 2 and 3. The suit was accordingly amended, seeking joint possession by challenging the sale made by defendant No. 1. Sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 on 31.8.1979 and was registered on 4.8.1979. The sale was said to be without consideration and legal necessity. It was also claimed that the sale was a sham transaction, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff/respondent to succeed to the property. It was also pleaded case of the plaintiff, that Chajju Ram had earlier by gift transferred 65 kanals 15 marlas of agricultural land out of total disputed land, but the civil suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the gift deed in favour of Gurcharan Singh was decreed on 31.1.1979. It was held in the suit that the gift deed of land measuring 65 kanals 15 marlas by Chaju Ram, in favour of Gurcharan Singh was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff. Appeal filed by Gurcharan Singh was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 25.5.1981. It was also pleaded that during the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. 1 transferred the land by way of impugned sale.