BALAK RAM Vs. SHIV RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT :- Respondent's suit for declaration that he was owner of the suit land as also the sale deed executed by one Rasila Ram in favour of the appellant was inoperative and ineffective as against the rights of the respondent is concurrently decreed by the Court below. This second appeal is filed by the defendant against the decrees passed by the Courts below against him.

(2.) Brief re'sume' relevant for the disposal of this second appeal is given as under :- One Shama had two sons, Rasila and Kirpu. Rasila left behind him Shiv Ram, the respondent, Kirpu had one son Mansa Ram, who has died issueless. Rasila is said to have kept a keep at his place, namely Mst. Rajo. The appellant is claiming to be a relation of Mst. Rajo. Appellant's case was that Mst. Rajo had lived for 40 years with Rasila as his wife, therefore, under law she will be deemed to be legally wedded wife of Rasila. Respondent's case is that she was only a keep of Rasila. After the death of Kirpu, brother of Rasila, his property has vested in Mansa Ram, his son. On Mansa's death it reverted back to Rasila as descendant of Mansa Ram's grandfather. The land sold by Rasila to the appellant comprises of his own land which he had inherited from his father as also the land which he inherited from Kirpu's son.

(3.) Courts below have held that the land in question was ancestral property in the hands of Rasila, therefore, he could not sell it, in any manner, without there being any legal necessity for making the sale. The sale deed is stated to have been obtained from Rasila by Balak Ram, through the instrumentality of Rajo, who is alleged to have been a keep of Rasila, and was without consideration. But the courts below have found that the sale of the coparcenary property was made without any legal necessity, therefore, it would not bind the respondent, son of Rasila, who had challenged the sale in favour of the appellant.