LALA SAHEB SINGH Vs. LALA GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a shop by avoidance of a sale-deed, dated the 9 of August 1918, executed by the plaintiffs father Girdhari Lal. The plaintiffs case was that the property was ancestral and that the sale-deed was without any consideration and, further, that there was no legal necessity for it and that Girdhari Lal was a man of immoral character and habits and the debt, if any, had been tainted with immorality. On behalf of the defendants the allegations contained in the plaint were denied and it was urged that the sale was justified. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the evidence of the plaintiffs that Girdhari Lal was a man of immoral character and he has further held that there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the immorality alleged with the amount advanced under the deed. He has further held that the defendants-vendees have shown that in fact part of the sum was paid in lieu of an antecedent debt and that there was legal necessity for the balance.

(2.) The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court and challenge the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that it was the duty of the sons to show why they were not bound by their father's acts. For this view he relies on a passage in Dr. GOUT S Hindu Code, at page 590, to the effect that the question of the burden of proof must depend upon whether the property has or has not passed out of the family by an alienation made by the father. If it has, then the son suing to dispossess the alienee must show why he is not bound by the father's alienation.