RAJ KUMAR Vs. HARDWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE relating to sale of 2 kanals land situated in the revenue estate of village Gothra Tappa Khori by the ancestors of the appellant-plaintiffs is under challenge in the present RSA. The appellant- plaintiffs having failed before both the courts below are in present appeal face to face with the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded in the case.

(2.) APPELLANT -plaintiffs Raj Kumar, Virender Singh, Surender Singh and Narender Singh brought a suit for possession in regard to land measuring 2 kanals on the ground that it was their ancestral property and as such coparcenary in nature in which they had equal rights with defendants No. 2 to 7, being members of a joint Hindu family. It is pleaded that appellant-plaintiff No. 1 Raj Kumar was son of Hari Singh and the remaining plaintiffs were sons of proforma defendant Sher Singh, they both being brothers inter se and respondents No. 5 to 7, being their sisters. Registered sale deeds dated 8.1.75 and 14.7.75 executed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 and respondent No. 6 respectively for ostensible consideration of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- are attacked on the ground that no sale consideration in fact had changed hands. It is, accordingly, pleaded that both the sale transactions were void and ineffective and these were neither for the benefit nor for any consideration or legal necessity. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sale deeds be ignored and possession be restored to the appellant-plaintiffs.

(3.) PARTIES adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. Learned Sub Judge concluded that the appellant-plaintiffs had locus to file the suit being related to the vendors. However, the finding on the crucial issue Nos. 2 and 6 went against the appellant-plaintiffs. It was found by the trial Court that the sale transactions were for due consideration and legal necessity and the sales were for the good management of the estate of the vendors. Accordingly, the appellant-plaintiffs were non-suited. Having remained unsuccessful before the first appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present regular second appeal.