RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-defendant No.1 was decreed; sale deed dated 15.6.1974 to the extent of plaintiff No.1's share was cancelled on payment of Rs. 13,500/- by the plaintiff No.1 to defendants No.1 to 3 within a period of two months; plaintiffs were held not entitled to possession of the suit house from the defendants-appellants; suit filed by the plaintiff No.2 for cancellation of sale deed was held pre-mature and the plaintiff No.1 was held entitled to costs from the defendant No.4.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondents No.1 and 2 plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and for possession of the suit property against the appellants and respondent No.4 Bhagwan Lal (their father) with the averments that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 1.2.1974 from Suresh Chandra for a sum of Rs. 26,000/-. The defendants No.1 to 3 were tenants in the said house and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- were deposited with Suresh Chandra as earnest money.

(3.) The rent deed has been executed by the eldest brother in favour of Suresh Chandra, which has been handed over to the plaintiffs by Suresh Chandra on the date of sale. By notice dated 6.2.1974, Suresh Chandra had informed defendant No.1 by a registered notice that he has sold the house to the plaintiffs and therefore, the rent be paid to them and the deposit of Rs. 1,000/- had also been transferred to them. Notice dated 1.3.1994 was issued by the plaintiffs seeking vacant possession of the said house, which was replied by the defendants on 22.3.1974 admitting them to be owners of the house, but refusing to vacant the same and one month's rent was sent by money-order and therefore, based on attornment, the defendants No.1 to 3 have become plaintiffs' tenants. On 23.6.1974, the plaintiff No.1 became major and plaintiff No.2 was still a minor. The suit property was required by the plaintiffs reasonably and bonafidely, however, the respondent No.4, their father sold the suit house to the defendants No.1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on 15.6.1974 and has executed a sale deed and therefore, the defendants do not treat them as landlord which is incorrect. The defendant No.4 had not obtained permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ('the Act') from the competent court and therefore, the sale deed was illegal and void and the plaintiffs are entitled for getting the same cancelled. The plaintiff was becoming a major 08 days after the date of sale and therefore, the defendant No.4 had no reason to sale the same to the defendants No.1 to 3; the defendant No.4 had no requirement as guardian of the money; as the defendants are plaintiffs-tenants, they are entitled for possession and therefore, the suit be decreed and the sale deed dated 15.6.1974 be cancelled and possession of the suit house alongwith the due rent be decreed.