INDARJIT SINGH Vs. JADDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs- respondents for a declaration that the sale-deed, dated 4 May 1928, executed by Mt. Phulesra and Dhanai Sahu, in favour of the defendant-appellant is not binding on the plaintiffs and other reversioners of Ram Subhag, deceased, after the death of Mt. Phulesra. Ram Subhag was admittedly the last male holder of the property covered by the sale-deed. Mt. Phulesra is the widow of Ram Subhag. The relationship of Dhanai and of the plaintiffs with Ram Subhag will appear from the following pedigree:

(2.) The predigree was admitted by the parties and a reference to the pedigree shows that Dhanai was the nearest reversioner of Ram Subhag on the date of the execution of the sale-deed and that the plaintiffs were remote reversioners. The sale-deed was with respect to a four annas share in village Dharampur and the consideration for the same was a sum of Rs. 4,656. Out of the sale consideration a sum of Rs. 2,778 was paid in cash by the vendee, the defendant-appellant, to Dhanai and Phulesra, the vendors, bafore the Sub-Registrar, and the balance of the sum of Rs. 1,878 was left with the vendee for the liquidation or for the payment of the following debts:

(3.) It. is common ground that Ram Subhag died as a separated Hindu about 24 years prior to the sale deed in dispute, and that after his death Mt. Phulesra entered into possession of the properties left by him as a Hindu widow. The plaintiffs case was that the saledeed was without consideration and without legal necessity, and that Dhanai the nearest reversioner, was in collusion with the vendee, the defendant-appellant, and he joined in the execution of the sale-deed simply at the instance of defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs further alleged that the real value of the property sold was Rupees 10,000. On these alienations the plaintiffs maintained that the sale-deed was not binding on them. The defendant- appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs being remote reversioners had no cause of action for the suit and that the sale-deed dated 4th May 1928, was supported by consideration and was executed for valid and legal necessities of paying up antecedent debts which were taken from time to time for meeting valid necessities and for the marriage of a daughter.