JAGIR SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevit, the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to declaration that the sale deed dated 27-12-1995 made by defendant-respondent 1 his father in favour of defendant-respondent 2 his brother and the sale deed dated 8-1-1996 made by defendant-respondent 1 in favour of defendant-respondent 3 another brother of the plaintiff-appellant are not invalid, null and void. It has also been found by both the Courts below that the property in the hands of defendant-respondent 1 had become his exclusive property and was no longer ancestral coparcenary property.

(2.) The following pedigree table would be helpful to understand the facts and the controversy which has led to the filing of the 6. Relief. 4. On vital issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 both the Courts have found that the suit land in the hands of defendant-respondent 1 was no longer Joint coparcenary property after the execution of partition in 1956 between all the members of joint Hindu family. It was further held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of defendant-respondent 1 or that it was not for a legal necessity or an act of good management. Therefore, sale deeds dated 27-12-1995 and 8-1-1996 were not held to be invalid. The view taken by the trial Court was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment and decree dated 4-10-2001 which reads as under : The respondent in addition to the Revenue Record had produced Ex. D7, copy of the judgment, Ex. D7/A, copy of the plaint and Ex. D8 copy of the decree-sheet, delivered in Civil Suit filed by the appellant as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3, against Sadhu Singh-respondent No. 1, which indicates that the land mentioned therein was alleged to have fallen to their share in a family settlement and as such, they were declared its owners. Ex. D8/A is the copy of the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 in that suit. Ex. D9 is the copy of the statement of Sadhu Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the validity of these documents. His only argument is that even after partition of the anestral coparcenary property, the land which fell to the share of Sadhu Singh- respondent No. 1 still remained as the ancestral coparcenary property of the appellant as well as respondent "Nos. 2 and 3 and he could not alienate the same in any manner. I find hardly any substance in this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant because once the Joint Hindu Family comes to an end and the Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property is partitioned, the land which falls to the share of each of the coparcener, becomes his exclusive ownership and he cannot be deprived of his right to alienate the same in the manner he likes. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me any law to substantiate his arguments. In such circumstances the land which has fallen to the share of respondent No. 1 was his exclusive The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration praying that the sale deeds dated 27-12-1995 and 8-1-1996 as referred to in above paragraph by defendant-respondent 1 his father were null and void because those sale deeds transferring the property to his brothers were without consideration and were riot executed out of a legal necessity or as an act of good management. It was further asserted that the suit properly was ancestral in the hands of defendant- respondent 1 father of the plaintiff- appellant even after partition. The stand taken by defendant-respondents in their written statement is that the plaintiff-appellant got his share from defendant-respondent 1 in the year 1956 and separated from rest of the family. A decree dated 7-5-1958 was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in that regard. According to the arrangement made in the partition, defendant- respondent 1 father of the plaintiff-appellant as well as defendant-respondents 2 and 3 retained his own share and the share of his wife. The remaining land was given by him to his three sons, namely, plaintiff- appellant and defendant-respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, sale deeds dated 27-12-1995 and 8-1-1996 were executed by defendants- respondent No. 1 in favour of defendant- respondent 2 and defendant-respondent 3 respectively.

(3.) The trial Court framed the following issues :