SAROJ AND ORS Vs. SUNDER SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Tijara, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Civil Case No.6/2007 whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellants-original plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants-original-plaintiffs happened to be the daughters of respondent No.2-original defendant No.2. According to the appellants, they were minors when their father Khilluram expired. Thereafter, their mother i.e respondent No.2 sold out the suit property which belonged to their father by executing sale deed on 9.12.1988. According to the appellants, since the said property belonged to their father, they have their shares in the said property and that their mother could not have sold the said property to the respondent No.1. The appellants therefore filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 9.12.1988 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) It has been sught to be submitted by learned counsel Mr.R.K.Mathur for the appellants that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and legal position that the appellants being the daughters of the deceased Khilluram had their respective shares in the suit property and therefore the respondent No.2 could not have sold the suit property to the respondent No.1. However, learned counsel Mr.Sriram Yadav for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the mother has brought up the daughters after the death of her husband and she had right to sell the suit property to meet with the expenses for their education and marriage. He also submitted that the sale deed executed in the year 1988 was sought to be challenged by the daughters i.e appellants in the year 2007, on their becoming major. He also submitted that the trial court having taking into consideration the entire evidence in the right perspective, the judgment and decree deserves to be confirmed.