SHAM SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's' suit. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of Teja Singh. Teja Singh sold land measuring 80 Bighas for Rs. 8,200/ - to Sham Singh, appellant, on 25th of February. 1957. In the sale deed Exhibit D.A., it is recited that the land has been sold for purchase of some other land, for redemption of other lands of the vendor and to pay off the existing debts and for sinking a well. On the 22nd of March, 1957. 30 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land were purchased in the name of the plaintiffs through the guardianship of their mother for a sum of Rs. 4000/ - from one Buta Singh. The land that was purchased was under mortgage. The mortgage money was Rs. 2500/. This amount was retained by the vendees for redemption or the mortgage on the said laud. The remaining amount of Rs. 1500/ - was paid in cash Rs. 700/ - deducted on account of the advanced paid already and the remaining Rs. 800/ - before the Sub -Registrar. The present suit was filed by the sons on the 9th of April, 1957 for the usual declaration that the land that had been sold by their father to Sham Singh appellant was ancestral qua them and the sale being without consideration and necessity was not binding on their reversionary rights and, therefore, it was prayed that a declaration be granted that the sale will be of no consequence after the death of their father. The suit was contested by the vendee Sham Singh. He maintained that the land was not ancestral, and that the sale was for consideration and necessity. The trial Court found that the necessity bad only been proved to the extent of Rs. 4315/12/ - It further found that the land was ancestral qua the plaintiffs with the result that plaintiffs were granted a declaration that the sale would not bind them after the death of their father and they would be entitled to take possession of the land only on payment of the amount that had been held to be for necessity. The vendee was dissatisfied with this decision and went up in appeal to the District Judge. The learned District Judge confirmed the decision of the trial Court mainly, but varied it so far as the quantum of amount found for necessity was concerned. The sum of Rs. 4315/12/ - found for necessity by the trial Court was raised to Rs. 4900/. The contention of the vendee that the purchase of land for Rs. 4000/ - in the name of the plaintiffs was an act of good management and that the amount should have been taken into account as an amount spent for a necessary purpose was negatived. The net result was that the decree in favour of the plaintiffs stood subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 4900/ - after the death of their father in order to obtain passion of the land in pursuance of the decree. The vendee Sham Singh is dissatisfied with this decision and has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) MR . Puri, who appears for the appellant, has restricted his argument to only one matter, namely, that the amount of Rs. 4000/ spent by the vendee to acquire the land in the name of his sons should have been held to be for necessity. Before dealing with his contention, it may be mentioned that custom is not static. As the society advances, the customs also keep on changing. One has to examine the prevailing state of the society while judging whether what was a necessary item of expenditure 20 years back still remains the necessary item of expenditure in the changed state of society. One cannot be pedantic. If one proceeds to examine these matters with fixed ideas, there can be no human progress. Therefore, one must not approach the problem from a narrow stand point. A widow who was totally a limited owner under custom, today has become the absolute owner of her property, a position far better than that of a male owner.

(3.) KEEPING in view of the above observations, I proceed to examine the validity of the contention of Mr. Puri that the amount of Rs. 4000/ - spent by the vendor for the purchase of land in the name of his sons in an act of good management. By effecting the sale, the vender got rid of his debts, redeemed certain lands and acquired property in the name of the sons to the extent of 30 Bighas 16 Biswas. Not only that, a new land acquired had a well in it. In this situation, it cannot be said that the act of the vendor was wasteful. On the contrary, he acted like a prudent man and his act mast be regarded as an act of good management. In any case, where a representation is made to the vendee that the land was being sold to acquire other land, even if there is no immediate necessity for the sale, the sale will still be an act of good management and binding on the reversioners. See in this connection Mohammad. Chiragh v. Fatta : A.I.R. 1934 Lah. 452 (2). In any case, since the plaintiffs have been benefited by the sale, they cannot question the sale to the extent of the amount which has benefited them. Therefore, on either ground, the amount of Rs. 4000 should have been held to be for necessity.