SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. JANGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhatinda dated January 18, 1969.

(2.) Briefly the case of the plaintiffs is that Sukhdev Singh minor, and Gurdev Singh were co-owners of the land in dispute in equal shares. Gurdev Singh and Hardam Singh acting as the guardian of Sukhdev Singh, sold the land in dispute to Jangir Singh, Balbir Singh and Ajmer Singh, defendants, vide sale deed dated March 21, 1957, for a consideration of Rs. 20000/-. Sukhdev Singh plaintiff and Surjit Singh, Gagar Singh and Gurcharan Singh, minor sons of Gurdev Singh, have challenged the sale in favour of the aforesaid defendants, inter alia, on the grounds that the land was ancestral, that the plaintiffs and the vendors were governed by custom in matters of alienation according to which the ancestral property could not be alienated except for consideration and valid necessary and that the sale was without consideration and legal necessity. Sukhdev Singh plaintiff alleged that his father Hardam Singh sold the land without the permission of the Court and the same was without consideration and not for his benefit. Defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the vendors and the plaintiffs were governed by custom, that the land was non-ancestral, that the sale was for consideration, legal necessity and also an act of good management. It further held that the suit of Surjit Singh plaintiff was within limitation. Consequently it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. They went up in appeal before the District Judge who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. They have come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the sale was not for consideration and legal necessity. He further says that it was also not an act of good management. According to the learned counsel, the conclusions of the Courts below on this question were erroneous. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, but do not find any substance in it. The first appellate Court, after noticing the evidence, has held that the sale was made for legal necessity and that it was also an act of good management. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and cannot be assailed in this Court. It has not been shown that the above finding is vitiated. I have also gone through the reasons given by the first appellate Court and find that the approach and the conclusions of that Court are correct. I, therefore, affirm the same.