BHAG SINGH Vs. KEHR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, affirming the decree of the trial Court.

(2.) On the 10th of May 1933, Sajjan Singh sold the land in dispute to Kehr Singh for Rs. 4000/-. In the sale deed the necessity mentioned was a sum of Rs. 2000/- and a sum of Rs. 400/- payable to Bishan Singh and others. The next necessity mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 800/- for payment to Ram Singh on a bahi account, Rs. 500/- to Kartar Singh on a mortgage, Rs. 100/- to another Kartar Singh on a bahi account, Rs. 150/- to Gokha Ram on a bond and Rs. 50/- for sale deed and registration expenses. The trial Court dismissed the suit as also the Court of First Appeal.

(3.) Mr. Nathu Mat Wadehra for the appellant submitted that in the sale deed with regard to Rs. 1,600/-, and that is the only item which is disputed, a necessity was mentioned but as a matter of fact, Rs. 1,475/- were paid to Ram Singh to redeem a previous mortgage, Rs. 60/- were used for the purchase of a bullock and Rs. 64/8/- were used for registration expenses, and this he submits could not be done as the necessity mentioned in the sale deed was the only necessity for which the sale price or mortgage money can be used and if any other kind of necessity is proved it cannot be said that necessity necessary for defeating a reversioner's suit is made out and he relies on two judgments of the Lahore High Court, 'Har-Nam Singh v. Jiwan Singh', AIR 1826 Lah 530 (1), where it was contended that because at the time of the suit a legal obligation to pay some of the debts had ceased to exist therefore to that extent the mortgage had ceased to be for valid necessity and it was held that on this ground the original transaction cannot be set aside. He has then relied on 'Iqbal Singh v. Mahindar Singh', AIR 1933 Lah 648, where it was held that if an alienee fails to take the obvious precaution of ascertaining necessity for an alienation of ancestral property and getting it duly recorded at the proper place and time, he must take the consequences. Neither of these things, in my opinion, applies to the facts of this case. No doubt, in the sale deed a particular necessity is mentioned, but if the money that was obtained by means of sale is used for the discharge of other debts which are also just debts, I do not think that an alienation can be set aside on that ground.