MUKHTTAR SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by Mukhtiar Singh vendee against the judgment dated February 18, 1972 of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, whereby he accepted the appeal of the plaintiff -respondents and setting aside the decree of the trial Court passed decree for declaration in their favour against the vendees for possession of the land in suit on payment of Rs. 2100/ -.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the land in suit measuring 19 Kanals and 7 Marlas fully described in the plaint and situated in village Raniwala, tehsil Tarn Taran district Amritsar, belonged to Buta Singh son of Jota Singh, a ghumar by caste and he sold the same to Piara Singh, Mukhtiar Singh sons of Puran Singh land Buta Singh son of Inder Singh of his village for Rs. 4000/ - on the basis of registered sale deed dated April 11, 1961. Buta Singh vendor died in the year 1966. Amarjit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Surjit Singh, plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are sons, Ambo and Rani, daughters and Gurdip Kaur, plaintiff No. 6, who is widow of Buta Singh filed suit for possession of this land on the allegations that the land in suit was ancestral in the hands of Buta Singh, and it was corparcenary property and he had no right to sell it without consideration and legal necessity, that the sale took place without consideration and legal necessity, and that Buta Singh was a person of immoral character and he effected the sale for immoral purposes and it is not binding on them. Buta Singh and Piara Singh, vendees did not appear in spite of service and they were proceeded against ex parte. Mukhtiar Singh vendee had contested the suit alone. He denied the allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the sale took place for consideration and legal necessity and for the benefit of the joint family and that the suit was barred by time. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : - -

(3.) The learned Sub -Judge held that only Amarjit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Surjit Singh, petitioners, who are sons of the vendor were entitled to challenge the alienation and not the other plaintiffs and decided issue No. 1 accordingly. The land in suit was held to be coparcenary property constituted by the vendor and his three sons. The suit was held to be within limitation and issues Nos. 2 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 3 it was held that the sale was an act of good management and legal necessity for Rs. 3400/ - was proved and he decided issue No. 3 in favour of the vendees. As a result the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with no order as to costs. Against this decree the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge who reversed the decision of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 3. He held that all the plaintiffs have got a right to file the suit and decided issue No. 1 accordingly. On issue No. 3, it was held that the consideration for whole of the sale price was proved but legal necessity was proved for Rs. 2100/ - only and therefore, the sale cannot be upheld. As a result, he accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and passed decree for possession of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the vendees on payment of Rs. 2100/ -. The parses were left to bear their own costs. Mukhitar Singh, vendee, thereafter filed the present appeal in this Court against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge.