LAWS(HPH)-1997-6-2

DES RAJ Vs. MEHAR SINGH

Decided On June 30, 1997
DES RAJ Appellant
V/S
MEHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the dismissal of his suit for declaration etc., has been upheld.

(2.) Suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that sale deed registered on 20-6-1973 at Hamirpur as well as Mutation No. 244 dated 29-3-1975 in respect of land measuring 8 kanals 19 marlas situate in Tika Kangru, Mauja Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur executed by Jaswant Singh defendant No. 2 father of the plaintiff in favour of Mehar Singh, defendant No. 1 is null and void as well as inoperative because it was made without legal necessity. Defendant No. 2 was alleged to be a drunkard and womaniser. According to the plaintiff there was no necessity much less legal necessity for the sale having been effected, besides this defendant No. 2 was pleaded to be a person having sufficient means as well as having landed and house property. It was also pleaded that the parties being Rajput are governed by custom in the matter relating to alienation of ancestral property as in the present case and the sale in question was made by defendant No. 2 for his illegal and immoral needs.

(3.) This suit was contested and resisted by defendant No. 1 who pleaded that he purchased the land from defendant No. 2 and on enquiry made by him from the latter, it was informed that money is required by him for development of land, performing marriage of his daughters. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the suit has been got filed by vendor defendant No. 2 who is spending the amount on this litigation in respect of minor plaintiff and the latter was residing with his parents. Defendant No. 2 was also stated to have constructed cow-shed as also spent money for bringing the land under plough and thus it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and merited dismissal. In replication filed by the plaintiff all the pleas raised in the written statement were controverted and those averred in the plaint were reiterated.