ABHE RAM Vs. RAM DEWARI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for declaration and joint possession has been decreed by the Courts below.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Inder Singh son of Goni alienated agricultural land measuring 41 Kanals 2 Marlas to Abhe Ram defendant appellant for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- vide sale-deed September 14, 1960 Exhibit D-1. His minor sons Ram Dewari and Suresh filed the usual suit for declaration through the guardianship of their mother, challenging the sale made by their father of the suit land, on the allegations that the land belonged to joint Hindu Family of which the vendor was a Karta and it was effected without consideration and legal necessity. The approach of the lower appellate Court in this respect, according The suit was contested and it was pleaded that the plaintiffs and the vendor were governed by agricultural custom of Punjab and not by Hindu law; that the sale in question was for consideration of Rs. 2500/- and was made for making the payment of the debts; for breaking the Banjar land, repairing the house and for the purchase of carts by the vendor. It was also pleaded that the suit was collusive and Benami and was barred by time. The suit was filed on February 23, 1968 i.e. about eight years after the sale. The trial Court found that the suit property was joint Hindu family property consisting of the vendor and the plaintiffs. Though the sale was found to be for consideration as the whole amount was paid at the time of the sale before the Registrar, but it was found to be without legal necessity. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers) affirmed these findings of the trail Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favor of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the vendee-defendant has come up in second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the present suit had been filed at the instance of the mother of the plaintiffs after about eight years of the sale and it had been amply proved on the record that the sale was for legal necessity. The approach of the lower appellate court in this respect, according to the learned counsel, is wrong and illegal and thus the findings arrived at are vitiated.