RAMAN LAL Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the appellant plaintiff has challenged the finding of the first appellate court that the property in dispute was sold for legal necessity.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants that the sale conducted by the defendant No. 1 Pyarelal in favour of defendant No. 3 was illegal & void because the property was of Joint Family and the defendant was not authorised to sell the property.

(3.) MR. Rastogi also invited my attention to the following observation of their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision of Smt. Rani vs. Smt Santa Bala (2) wherein their Lordships observed as under:- Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion: it means pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alien by proof of actual necessity or by proof that he made proper and bona fide enquiries about the existence of the necessity and that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessity. Recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. The recitals may be used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity. The weight to be attached to the recitals varies according to the circumstances. Where the evidence which would be brought before the Court and is within the special knowledge of the person who seeks to set aside the sale is withheld, such evidence being normally not available to the alien, the recitals go to his aid with greater force and the Court may be justified in appropriate cases in raising an inference against the party seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of absence of legal necessity wholly or partially, when he withholds evidence in his possession.