AJAIB SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -plaintiff, Balbir Singh filed suit for possession of 1/6th share of the property described in the plaint by questioning sale-deed dated 26.4.1956 on the ground that the plaintiff was minor on the date of sale and was not bound by the sale-deed.

(2.) THE suit was contested on the ground that the property was old by Karta of the joint family as an act of good management, which was binding on the plaintiff.

(3.) ON appeal, findings of the trial Court have been reversed. Finding of the trial Court on the question that sale was for the benefit of the minor and for the benefit of the estate has been reversed. In para 13, it has been observed that about 300 bighas of land was sold under the impugned sale in which the plaintiff's share was about 50 bighas. Recitals in the sale-deed that land was being sold for discharge of debt, installation of tube-well, redemption of land, education and bringing up of the plaintiff, were not proved. There transactions of purchase of land Exhibits DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 were for a total consideration of Rs. 33,500/- only. In para 14, it was observed that the plaintiff was not proved to owe any debt; the plaintiff had already left studies much earlier. There was no evidence that tube-well was required to be or was installed. As regards purchase in Pilibhit, it was observed that DW-3 Hardwar Gupta examined by the defendants had no personal knowledge regarding the transactions and no attempt was made to identify the persons who were vendees. Certified copies of the sale-deed were not produced. The plaintiff or the other vendees had not shifted to Pilibhit. There was no evidence of spending of substantial amount on the plaintiff after the sale. The trial Court wrongly observed that much larger area was purchased as compared to the area sold.