KRISHAN LAL Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 12th February, 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 86 of 1976 partly allowing the appeal as filed by the plaintiff Raja Ram thereby partly setting -aside and modifying the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1976 in Civil Original Case No. 9/72 re -numbered as 40 of 1975 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh. While the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff Raja Ram claiming the shave in the property of his adoptive father defendant No. 4 Pola Ram, holding the adoption not valid in law, the learned Single Judge not only held the adoption valid but also held that the sale executed by the defendant No. 4 Pola Ram in favour of the defendants No. 1 Krishan Lal S/o Nathu Ram and No. 2 Raja Ram S/o Nathu Ram was null and void as the joint family property was sold without any legal and family necessity. He also declared that the Will executed by the defendant No. 4 Pola Ram in favour of the defendant No. 3 Nathu Ram S/o Chhoga Ram will not affect the lights of the plaintiff Raja Ram as regards the half portion of the agricultural land described In para 3 of the plaint as also half share in the houses situated at Manaksar and Suratgarh belonging to the plaintiff - Raja Ram and defendant No. 4 Pola Ram jointly.

(2.) THE plaintiff Raja Ram filed a suit on 3.8.1968 for cancellation of the sale -deed dated 11.7.1968 executed by defendant No. 4 Pola Ram in favour of his two nephews Krishna Lai and Raja Ram sons of Nathu Ram and the Will executed in favour of Nathu Ram dated 11.7.1968 by Pola.Ram contending inter -alia that Pola Ram adopted the plaintiff Raja Ram on 1.1.1962 by a registered adoption deed with full ceremony according to law. The defendant No. 4 Pola Ram alleged to be the adoptive father of the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 Raja Ram alleged that defendant No. 4 Pola Ram owned 21 Bighas of land in Chak No. 36 P.B.N. and 14 Bighas and 4 Biswas of land in Chak No. 37 P.B.N. In Tehsil Suratgarh. in all he owned 35 Bighas and 4 Biswas of land. He also owned one house at Matasar Khuni and one house at Suratgarh. According to the plaintiff, all these properties were co -parcenary properties because it passed in the hands of defendant No. 4 Pola Ram from his father and as the plaintiff was adopted by Pola Ram, it became coparcenary between Pola Ram and the plaintiff. It has been alleged that the entire agricultural land has been sold in favour of the. defendants No. 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs.75,000/ - and a Will was made regarding the houses in favour of Nathu Ram by a registered deed. The plaintiff alleged that as the property was an ancestral property his adoptive father defendant No. 4 Pola Ram could not have executed any Will in favour of defendant No. 3 Nathu Ram and could not have sold his property in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 without any family necessity and legal necessity. Initially, the plaintiff filed the suit in the forma pauperis, which was resisted by the defendants and after enquiry, it was held that the plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the Court fees. Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to put in the Court fees and after such payment, the suit was registered in a regular way.

(3.) THE trial Court framed several issues and one of them was to the effect as to whether the plaintiff was the adopted son of Pola Ram. The other issue was as to whether the property in dispute was a co -parcenary property or whether it was a personal property of Pola Ram. There was yet another issue as to whether the Will executed by Pola Ram was invalid and was executed under undue influence. The further issue was as to whether the sale deed was without consideration. The other material issue was whether the property was transferred by Pola Ram for legal necessity provided it was held to be a co -parcenary property. Last but not least, the issue was whether the plaintiff acquired no rights under Section 13 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and whether the plaintiff acquired no rights in the property as alleged -in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the written statement.