LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-246

AMAR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RAMCHANDER AND ORS.

Decided On August 03, 2015
Amar Singh and Ors. Appellant
V/S
Ramchander And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against an order allowing for sale of 4 kanals of land out of total extent which was said to be 160 kanals. The plaintiffs were seeking for a relief that the decree obtained by the defendant on 02.02.1979 was null and void and that the mutation that had taken place pursuant to the decree was also wrong, null and void and brought about by fraud and misrepresentation.

(2.) The plaintiffs represent one branch of the family through one Bachna son of Bija Ram, while the defendants were the persons whose another son Ramchander-the first defendant, who had obtained a decree in the year 1979. The plaintiffs had given a statement during the pendency of suit that the defendants shall not sell the property otherwise than with permission from the court. The 1st defendant had sought for such permission on a plea that he had contacted a loan from a bank to the tune of Rs. 9 lakh which was long over due and he had to perform the marriage of the daughter and, therefore, sale of 4 kanals must be permitted. The plaintiffs objected to the same but the court found the reasons given to be justification enough for granting the order. The court also observed that the plaintiffs had themselves suffered a statement earlier that the property could be sold with the permission and if such permission was sought, the plaintiffs again cannot object to the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs places the following arguments: (i) it is an admitted fact that the properties are ancestral and consequently, the decree obtained by the first defendant against his father without reference to the plaintiffs' rights cannot bind them; (ii) the statement already given by the plaintiffs that the property could be sold only with the permission from the court ought not to be understood as providing for a carte blanche for the defendant to sell the property whimsically and the court shall not abdicate its powers and allow for sale without examining the justification for the sale; (iii) the defendants, who were setting out the necessity for the sale produced no proof that there was indebtedness with the bank and that there was any marriage to be celebrated.