MEGH RAJ Vs. RELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular first appeal from the judgment & decree of Sub-Judge 1st class, Bhatinda. One Narain Singh Aggarwal of Minsa sold a shop to Relu Mal, Chanan Ram Baboo Ram & Bonarsi Dass for Rs. 10,000. Megh Raj & Gurcharan Dass, sons of Narain Singh, brought a suit for possession of the shop on the allegations that it was a joint family property, that the sale made by their father was without any legal necessity & that they were not bound by it. It may hero be mentioned that prior to the sale Narain Singh had also mortgaged the shop & the position of the pltfs. was that the mtge. too was void as against their interests inasmuch as it had not been made for the benefit of the joint family of which they & their father were the members. The vendees resisted the suit on the grounds that the shop was not the joint family property, that Megh Raj pltf. had no locus standi to bring the action, & that the sale as well as the mortgage had been effected for the benefit of the joint family. All these points were put in issue but the Sub-Judge without deciding the issue relating to the character of the sale dismissed the suit holding that the pltfs. had not been able to prove that the shop was the coparcenary property. The pltfs. are the applts. before us.

(2.) Before entering into the merits of the appeal I consider it necessary to observe that the Ct. below acted improperly in leaving undecided some of the issues arising in the case. It has been pointed out by this Ct. more than once that except in cases where a question of jurisdiction is involved it is the duty of trial Cts. to give their findings on all the issues raised by the parties It so happens that in this case we are upholding the decision of the Ct. below that the suit property has not been shown to be the property of the joint family & accordingly the pltfs. cannot question the sale but had our finding been otherwise, the decree passed by the trial Ct. would have had to be set aside & the case would have been remanded for decision on the issue which was left undecided & this would have resulted not only in hardship & unnecessary expense for the parties but would have involved a considerable waste of the time of Cts.

(3.) Both sides are agreed that Narain Singh's father was Kaka alias Bishan Singh & Kaka had a brother named Ishar Singh. The name of Kaka Singh's father was Punjab Singh. The parties are further agreed that Punjab Singh bought two vacant sites, one on which the shop in dispute was constructed & on the other was raised a second shop. Kaka predeceased Punjab Singh. It was contended on behalf of the pltfs. that the shop became the coparcenary property because it wa3 the ancestral property inasmuch as it devolved upon Narain Singh from Punjab Singh. The contesting defts., on the other hand, argued that Narain Singh got the shop from Punjab Singh by way of gift & for this reason it was the self-acquired property of Narain Sigh & his sons, even though they formed a joint family with him they acquired no interest in it by birth. No documentary evidence was produced by the defts. to prove that Punjab Singh gifted the shop to Narain Singh & the entire evidence that they reld. upon in this connection consisted of the statements of their witnesses. [His Lordship discussed the evidence and proceeded as follows:] I, therefore, hold that Narain Singh obtained the shop in dispute from his grandfather Punjab Singh by gift.