SURENDER PAL Vs. NIKKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lays challenge to judgment and decree dtd. 14/6/2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.285/13 of 2004/ 1999, affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 17/8/1999, passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in case No.201/1 of 1991, titled as Surender Pal etc. versus Nikka Ram etc., whereby suit for declaration and possession having been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), averring therein that the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.2 and they being Hindus constituted a Joint Hindu Family. Plaintiffs claimed that plaintiff and defendant No.2 are governed by Hindu law in matters of alienation of their ancestral joint Hindu family property. Plaintiffs claimed that suit land measuring 3 biswas, which is 1/120th share of land measuring 18-10 bighas bearing Khasra No. 1011/968/9356, Khata/Khatauni No.202/249 min, situate in village Panol, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is ancestral joint Hindu family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Plaintiffs specifically claimed in the suit that suit land was inherited by defendant No.2 from his fore-father and as such, he could not sell the same without there being any legal necessity. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant No.2 illegally sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 by way of registered Sale Deed dtd. 29/12/1990 for consideration of Rs.13,000.00 without any legal necessity and as such, Sale Deed registered on 29/12/1990 in favour of defendant No.1 qua the suit land be declared as null and void being totally illegal and they be handed over possession of the suit land.

(3.) Aforesaid suit having been filed by the plaintiffs came to be resisted by defendant No.1, who purchased the suit land from defendant No.2. Besides taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and valuation, defendant No.1 claimed that neither plaintiff and defendant No.2 constitute a joint Hindu Family nor the suit land is ancestral Joint Hindu family property. Defendant No.1 claimed before the court below that suit land is self acquired property of defendant No.2 and he had already sold some plots out of the aforesaid land to some other persons and at no point of time challenge, if any, ever came to be laid by the plaintiff qua those sale deeds. Defendant also claimed that sale of suit land by defendant No.2 in his favour was for legal necessity because defendant No.2 after sale of suit land constructed house and three shops in the same Khasra number.