MANOHAR LAL Vs. DEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEWAN Chand father of the appellants sold land measuring 112 kanals, 101/2 marlas for Rs. 8000/- vide sale deed D. /- 19-9-1963. The appellants filed this suit for joint possession of the said land alleging that they constituted a joint Hindu family with their father; that the land sold was coparcenary property and that the sale has been made without consideration and legal necessity. The suit was contested by the vendees who controverted all the material allegations and further pleaded that the sale having been made for the benefit of the family and being an act of good management was binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties negatived the plea that the property was coparcenary property and further holding that the sale had been made for consideration and legal necessity and as an act of good management dismissed the suit. Its findings were affirmed on appeal which led to the filing of this second appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE appeal came up for hearing before me sitting singly and finding as to the ancestral nature of the land in dispute was modified holding that 2/3 rd of the land in dispute was coparcenary property. Thereafter the question arose as to whether the sale was liable to be set aside in toto qua the ancestral property or was valid and binding to the extent of the share of the vendor. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on Jawala Singh v. Lachhman Das, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 188, urged that the sale was binding to the share of the vendors. Doubting the correctness of the decision in Jawals Singh's case (supra) I referred the following question to a larger bench:- "whether the sale of coparcenary property, it found to be neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate would be binding to the extent of the share of the vendor ?

(3.) WHEN the matter came up before the division Bench, it was brought to their notice that the decision in Jawala Singh's case (supra) had been later on confirmed by a Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No. 692 of 1973 (Lachhman Dass v. Ude Chand) decided on 31-1-1977. The Division Bench consequently referred the above question to the Full Bench.