ANGURI DEVI Vs. MOTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mam Raj was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 130 kanals 18 marlas, which is the subject matter in the present appeal. This land was ancestral property in his hand. He was having no male issue, but had only one daughter, namely Smt. Anguri Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-appellant). On 24-1-1957, he sold the land in dispute in favour of Moti Ram, Ramji Lal, Ram Saran, Lachhman and Jit (these persons or their LRs are the respondents in the present appeal) for a consideration of Rs.14,000.00 vide the registered sale deed.

(2.) The above said sale deed was challenged by Lala Ram, who was the real brother of vendor Mam Raj, claiming himself as reversioner under the customary law, on the ground that the sale deed was without legal necessity and since the entire land was ancestral property, therefore, the sale was not binding on the rights of the reversioners. Initially, that suit filed by Lala Ram was dismissed by the trial court while holding that the land was not found to be ancestral because part of the land was proved to be ancestral and the remaining non-ancestral. But in appeal, the suit of Lala Ram was decreed and the sale deed dated 24-1-1957 executed by Mam Raj was declared to be without legal necessity and not binding on the rights of the reversioners after the death of aliens (Mam Raj). The vendees Moti Ram and others filed RSA No. 285 of 1958, in this Court, which was decided on 17-3-1966. It was held by this Court that the land was ancestral in nature and the sale was without legal necessity. Thus, the same will not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff or the reversioners like him. A point was raised by the vendees (respondents herein) that the suit filed by a Lala Ram for setting aside the sale deed being reversioner is speculative one, because daughter of Mam Raj, namely, Smt. Anguri Devi (plaintiff-appellant herein), is alive and in her presence the suit filed by Lala Ram, the brother of Mam Raj, is not maintainable. On this point, raised by the vendees, this Court observed as under :- "The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that no declaration can be granted because that would be speculative because daughter of Mam Raj, who is the next heir, was alive. No doubt, the daughter cannot take advantage of this decree, which will enure only for the benefit of the reversioners. There is, however, nothing to indicate whether the vendor cannot get another son either natural or adopted who may be able to take advantage of this declaratory decree. In any case, this declaratory decree will not harm the alienees till such time as there is a person who can take advantage of the decree and who happens to be the next heir after the demise of Mam Raj."

(3.) The above observations were made in judgment dated 17-3-1966, Ex. P6. The decree of even date, Ex. P7, reads as under :-