(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, whereby the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, has been upheld. Bharat Bhushan (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) is the transferee of the land measuring 1 -2 0 bighas (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) by the father of the plaintiffs Niranjan Singh (hereinafter referred as the defendant No. 3), Girdhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as the defendant -2) is the father of Bharat Bhushan transferee
(2.) Sale effected by defendant No. 3 of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 came to be questioned by the plaintiffs on the basis that the said property being ancestral in nature could not have been transferred by defendant No. 3 either under law or custom governing such alienation According to the plaintiffs their father defendant No.3 was holding enough agricultural land besides having rental income and salary while he was employed in I.T.B.P. and above all he was having an apple orchard which also yielded income to him, therefore, there was no justification of the transfer effected by him in favour of defendant No. 1 Further case of the plaintiffs was that Girdhari Lal defendant No. 2 who is father of defendant No 1 was a close relation of defendant No 3 had obtained the sale deed after exercising under pressure upon the said defendant in favour of his son i.e defendant No. 1. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the consideration of Rs. 1000 shown in the sale deed was sham and in fact nothing has been paid to defendant No. 3.
(4.) in replication filed by the plaintiffs to both the written statements, pleas raised on behalf of the defendants were controverted and parties went to trial oh the following issues ;