HETRAM Vs. BHADARRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff Hetram and his minor brother Sahabram is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganga-nagar, dated 31-5-71 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits

(2.) THE dispute relates to agricultural land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas which is a part of Khasra No. 167 measuring 32 bighas 6 biswas in village Dulmana, Tehsil Suratgarh, district Ganganagar. By a deed of sale dated 9 9-59 which was registered on 10-9-59, Gangaram alias Nandram, the father of the plaintiffs, sold the disputed land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas to the defendant-respondent Bhadaram for Rs, 10304/ -. On 25-10-68 the plaintiffs brought the present suit alleging that the entire khasra No. 167 belonged to their grand-father Arjanram and on the death of Arjanram it devolved upon their father Gangaram. THEy further alleged that the sale-deed dated 9. 9. 1959 executed by their father was entirely without consideration and no amount whatsoever was paid for the land. It was further alleged that the land being undivided ancestral property, their father Gangaram had no power to sell it. THEy also pleaded that their father had no debts to repay and consequently, the sale was without any legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. It was also mentioned in the plaint that both the plaintiffs Hetram and Sahabram were minors at the date of the sale transaction. On these allegations, the plaintiffs prayed that the sale-deed in question be cancelled and a decree for possession of the suit land as also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs 1000/-per annum from the date of the suit to the date of delivery of possession be granted in their favour.

(3.) BESIDES the sale-deed Ex. 1, the plaintiffs have produced oral evidence. PW 1 Hetram, PW 2 Jesaram and PW 4 Ganeshram have all deposed that the suit land was inherited by Gangaram from his father. The testimony of these witnesses in further corroborated by the defendant's own witness DW 6 Kalu. The latter has deposed that Gangaram inherited from his father 64 bighas of land and out of it Gangaram sold 16 bighas to Bhadarram defendant. The evidence of these witnesses clearly proves that the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Gangaram. There is thus no force in the argument of Mr. Purohit that the suit land was not ancestral property of Gangaram.