PREM SINGH Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDIT Singh, defendant No. 2 executed sale deed Ex. D.1 dated 20.7.1993 in favour of defendant No. 1 Dharam Singh. The appellant-plaintiffs claiming to be co-parceners - plaintiff No. 1 being son and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 being grand-sons, challenged the sales as being without legal necessity. It was stated that plaintiff No. 1 earlier filed a suit for injunction against alienation and the same was withdrawn as sale deed was registered and the same had to be challenged. Gurdit Singh had sufficient money in his bank account and the amount received by sale, was never utilised.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Dharam Singh, vendee contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit property was not ancestral and sale was for legal necessity as vendor was suffering from chronic illness. Plea of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was also raised.

(3.) ON appeal, findings on the trial court were upheld. The lower appellate court, in para 11 of its judgment, observed that in the previous suit for injunction filed by plaintiff Prem Singh, vendor Gurdit Singh filed written statement Ex. DX admitting that the suit property was not ancestral and that he needed money because he was suffering from Asthma of acute type.