INDERJIT Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to be partly decreed and in appeal decree was modified.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had brought a suit through his next friend Zile Singh against the defendants for possession of agricultural land by asserting that he is the son of Ram Sarup and said Ram Sarup sold away his agricultural land through registered sale deed to the defendants. The sale deed was said to be without consideration and without legal necessity. It was claimed that the plaintiff and Ram Sarup are Jat by caste and in the matter of alienation are governed by customs as prevalent in the old territory of Delhi. It was also claimed that the plaintiff is governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and constituted a Hindu Joint family with his father Ram Sarup. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired interest by birth to the extent of half share in the suit land as mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint. It was claimed that after the sale as Ram Sarup was not heard at least for the last 7 years, therefore, he is presumed to have died and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the present suit for possession of the suit land. In the alternative it was claimed that in case Ram Sarup is found to be alive then this may be treated as suit for declaration.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants sale in question was admitted. However, the claim was disputed by asserting that the plaintiff was not son of Ram Singh. The factum of land being ancestral was also denied. Defendants further claimed that the parties were not governed by the customs and it was claimed that Jats of the area have full power to alienate the ancestral property even without legal necessity. It was also claimed that Ram Sarup and the plaintiff did not constitute Hindu Joint Family. The assertion that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the land in suit was also denied. It was also denied that Ram Sarup was not heard for the last 7 years and it was claimed that the sale was for legal necessity and consideration. The ground of limitation was also taken. It was also claimed that sale was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. He also claimed to have made improvement on the suit land. Pleas of misjoinder of causes of action and non-joinder of parties were also taken besides questioning the valuation of the suit.