SONAM DOLMA Vs. PHUNCHOG ANGRUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1992 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989 dismissing the appeal of the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22-11-1988 of Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1986 whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs for setting aside the sale was decreed. Here-in-after the parties are referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and 'the defendants'. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated :

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs in the suit filed against the defendants was that one Shri Panchhi Ram was owner in possession of the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Panchhi Ram died in the month of September, 1980 and after his death mutation of his estate comprising of the suit property was attested and sanctioned in favour of his widow defendant No. 1 Smt. Sonam Dolma. It was alleged that plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 belong to Bodh category of Tribes and are permanent residents of Lahaul and Spiti and as such they are governed by the tribal custom of District Lahaul ans Spiti. It was stated that as per tribal custom governing the parties, the female holder of the property is to hold the property till her life time or till she re-marries or till her death. The plaintiffs alleged that Panchhi Ram was their real brother and they are entitled to inherit the suit property being reversioners of Panchhi Ram deceased after defendant No. 1 contracted second marriage on 23-10-1984 with one Sanjeev Kumar and as such she ceased to be the owner of the suit property and the plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover the possession of the suit property. It was also stated that defendant No. 1 by fictitious and forged sale-deed dated 24-1-1985 sold a part of the suit property for Rs. 40,000.00 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 and a part of the suit property was sold on 16-10-1985 to defendant No. 8 for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,000.00 and as such these sale transactions were void and illegal and inoperative being not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs as defendant No. 1 had no legal necessity to sell the suit property to the vendee. On these premises a suit was filed seeking declaration for setting aside the sale of the property by defendant No. 1 to other defendants with consequential relief of possession.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 in her separate written statement resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiffs. She denied her marriage with Sanjeev Kumar. She stated that the suit property was a self acquired property of Panchhi Ram and pleaded that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the sale transaction, inter alia, also took up the plea of valuation of the suit. On merits, it has been stated that Panchhi Ram was 'Bodh' but he was 'Lohar' (Black-smith) and she was the only surviving heir to succeed the suit property after the death of Panchhi Ram. She pleaded that fore-fathers of Panchhi Ram had gone to Lahual to work as Lohars and worked there as such, but they were not governed by the tribal custom of that area. However, the relationship between the plaintiffs and Panchhi Ram has not been denied. She supported the genuineness of the sale transactions and further pleaded that she had to re-pay the debts of her late husband and to meet her daily needs of life and that she had to spend on the ritual rites of her husband, thus, she had to sell the property for legal necessity with utmost reluctance.