KRISHAN Vs. JILE SINGH (P&H)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-appellants are in regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration challenging the validity of sale deed dated 21.05.1980 jointly executed by Didara, Desh Raj, Lakhmi Chand and Ram Sarup. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are minor sons of Ram Sarup whereas plaintiffs No.4 and 5 are sons of Lakhmi Chand. The suit has been filed through guardian Shanti, wife of Ram Sarup one of the vendor. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is co-parcenary property and the sale deed has been executed without legal necessity. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that their parents and their uncles are drunken spendthrift. Didara, Desh Raj, Lakhmi Chand and Ram Sarup were impleaded as defendants No.8 to 11. Defendants filed the written statement claiming that the sale is without any legal necessity. Obviously the suit was filed at the behest of defendants No.8 to 11 through children of defendants No.8 and 9.

(2.) The sale deed is available on the file as Ex.P-1. In the sale deed, it is specifically recorded that the defendants No.8 to 11 required the money for purchasing the property at some other place. Learned First Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has found that the vendors were in legal necessity of the funds on three grounds:-

(3.) Judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is challenged before this Court. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and the record.