GORDHAN Vs. RAM MEHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 10.6.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, thereby, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs / respondents and granting declaration to the effect that the sales deeds and lease deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 are illegal, null and void and without legal necessity and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. The parties were left to bear their own costs. It is mentioned here that the lower Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 13.1.1990 for possession, in the alternative declaration for declaring the sale deed dated 8.9.1982 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4, Pattanama dated 25.8.1982 in favour of defendant No.3, also sale deed dated 21.1.1988 and surrender Pattanama dated 10.2.1982 both in favour of defendant No.4 regarding the suit land as illegal and without legal necessity and without consideration. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the plaintiffs are held to be governed by the agricultural custom of the Punjab and Haryana State and that of District Gurgaon, then a decree for declaration may be passed that the alleged sale deeds and Pattanamas in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 are illegal, being without legal necessity and consideration and not binding upon the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land measuring 44 kanals 13 marlas fully detailed in the plaint, being the Joint Hindu un-divided family and ancestral land, consisting of plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Plaintiff No.1 was born on 30.10.1969, plaintiff No.2 was born in the month of October 1972 and plaintiff No.3 was born in the year 1975- 1976. Plaintiffs are sons of defendant No.2. They are Hindu by religion. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 form Joint Hindu Coparcenary family. Defendant No.1 is the Karta. Plaintiffs have got right by birth in the Joint Hindu Family coparcenary and ancestral property. The suit land was recorded in the name of defendant No.1, being Karta of the family. According to Hindu Mitakshara Law, Karta is not competent to alienate the ancestral property to anyone without consideration and legal necessity. It is stated that defendant No.1 is man of evil habits. He is a drunkard and gambler. He is also a spend thrift and man of loose character, who feels pleasure in squandering away the ancestral joint Hindu family and coparcenary property without legal necessity and consideration. It is stated that defendant No.1 had executed sale deed dated 8.9.1982 for Rs. One lac in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 also obtained a sham and bogus lease deed for 99 years from defendant No.1 in favour of his relations or fast friend, defendant No.3 vide Pattanama dated 25.8.1982. The said Pattanama amounts to permanent alienation. The same is without consideration and without legal necessity. Plaintiffs also came to know that defendant No.2 further transferred the suit land to defendant No.4 for a fictitious sum of Rs.25 lacs vide sale deed dated 21.1.1988 and also got said Pattanama surrendered from defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 vide surrender deed dated 10.9.1988. The said sale deed dated 21.1.1988 and surrender Pattanama are also illegal and void documents and do not effect the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, prayer is made for setting aside these documents and granting decree for possession. It is further stated that the suit is filed within three years of attaining majority by plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are still minors.