LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF KUNDANMAL Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant first appeal was preferred by the appellant Kundanmal and is now being pursued by his LRs for assailing the judgment-cum-decree dated 17.03.1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu in Civil Original Suit No.6/82, whereby the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 14.09.1977 executed by defendant Bachchhraj in favour of the appellant Kundanmal was decreed and the sale deed pertaining to a Nohara located at Sardarshahar town, District Churu on a plot measuring 1285 Sq. Yards was cancelled to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs (i.e. 4/5).

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. The Nohara in question was purchased by Magni Devi, grandmother of the plaintiff-respondents and mother of Bachchhraj, defendant No.2, for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-. During her lifetime, Mrs. Magni Devi bequeathed the Nohara to Smt. Ratni Devi, the mother of the plaintiffs and the wife of defendant Bachchhraj. Ratni Devi expired on 04.01.1969. The plaintiffs claimed that Bachchhraj contracted a second marriage with another woman after the death of their mother and their grandmother Magani Devi looked after and maintained them thereafter. Bachchhraj executed the registered sale-deed of the entire Nohara in question in favour of the defendant No.1 Kundanmal by accepting a meagre consideration of Rs.12,000/-, whereas the market value of the Nohara at the time of sale was Rs.75,000/-. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the specific ground that Bachchhraj had no right to sell the Nohara as the plaintiffs also had a share therein, which they acquired by inheritance. It was also stated that Bachchhraj had no legal right to sell the property, which had assume the character of a joint family property after the death of Ratani Devi without a formal partition and as such also, the sale deed was void and illegal.

(3.) Bachchhraj, being the defendant No.2, did not appear before the trial court and as such, the proceedings were made ex parte against him. The appellant defendant Kundanmal filed a written statement to the suit claiming that the suit premises, i.e. the Nohara, was not owned by the plaintiffs and that Bachchhraj was the sole owner thereof. The plaintiffs used to reside with their father Bachchhraj, who used to take care of their maintenance and other needs. The claim of the plaintiffs that after the death of Smt. Ratani Devi, their grandmother Smt. Magani Devi took care of their maintenance etc. was opposed. The defendant No.1 claimed that Bachchhraj had unencumbered right to sell the Nohara in question.