MANDRUP Vs. MAMAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of courts below whereby suit of appellant Mandrup (since deceased) now represented by his legal representatives was dismissed. Mandrup had sought relief as follows : -

(2.) THE case of plaintiff, in brief, was that Amin Lal defendantrespondent No.5 was his father. His real mother Smt. Dhapa was married with Fatta brother of Amin Lal, who died during World War and after his death Smt. Dhapa contracted Karewa marriage with Amin Lal. Defendant No.4 Smt. Manni was also the wife of Amin Lal. In the year 1958, due to quarrel between his two wives namely Smt. Manni and Smt. Dhapa, defendant No.5 executed a sale deed dated 12.3.1959 of his land measuring 73 Bigha 15 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Obra, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, which was ancestral qua the plaintiff and defendant No.5.

(3.) THE sale was without consideration and legal necessity. Defendant No.4 was living with defendant No.5 in his house and had a common mess with him, as such, had no source of income or she could manage the sale consideration. Defendant No.4 never came in possession of the above land and the same continued to be cultivated by defendant No.5. All this reflect that the sale was only a paper transaction. In November, 1974, defendant No.4 moved an application before the Revenue Authorities to get her name entered in the column of cultivation for the crop of Khariff 1974. That application was, however, dismissed. Defendant No.4 under the influence of defendants No.1 to 3 sold the suit land to them vide sale deed dated 28.2.1973 for a sum of Rs. 49,000. The sale deed was got executed and registered at Delhi falsely showing the place of residence of defendant No.4 at Delhi. In lieu of the land sold vide sale deed dated 12.3.1959, land measuring 164 kanal 1 marla was allotted after consolidation of land. The sale of land by defendant No.5 was without any legal necessity or consideration. Being ancestral property defendant No.5 was not competent to alienate the same in favour of defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 had no authority to sell the same to defendants No.1 to 3.