AJAIB SINGH Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Ludhiana reversing on appeal the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana who had granted the plaintiff a decree declaring that sale of the suit land by his father Sher Singh in favour of Dewa Singh defendant by means of sale-deed dated 20 November 1936 should not affect his reversionary rights after the vendor's death except to the extent of Rs. 900 and dismis-sing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) On 29 August 1930 the aforesaid Sher Singh mortgaged the suit land to the father of Bhagat Singh and Jagir Singh defendants for Rs. 900 In certain execution proceedings that had been taken by Dewa Singh against Mangal Singh, the father of Sher Singh, the latter had become liable as a surety. By means of sale, deed dated 20 November 1936 the land that had been mortgaged by Sher Singh in 1930 to the father of Bhagat Singh and Jagir Singh defendants was sold to Dewa Singh for a sum of Rs. 1500. Out of the consideration for the sale Rs. 900 were left with the vendee for redemption of the previous mortgage and the balance of Rs. 600 was credited to him on account of the decretal debt due primarily from Mangal Singh for which Sher Singh had become liable as a surety.

(3.) The learned trial Judge held that the discharge of the debt for which Sher Singh was liable merely as a surety could not justify an alienation of ancestral property, and in support of this view he relied on a Single Bench judgment of the High Court of Lahore reported as Thaman Singh V/s. Bachna A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 702. Holding necessity for the sale to have been proved only to the extent of Rs. 900 which was due to the previous mortgagee, he granted the plaintiff a declaration that the sale should not affect his reversionary rights after Sher Singh's death except to the extent of the aforesaid amount. The learned District Judge has held that in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the rule laid down in Thaman Singh V/s. Bachna A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 702, could not be applied and that Sher Singh having become surety for his own father in order to save property, which was eventually to devolve on himself, from sale In execution of the decree, an alienation of ancestral property for the discharge of the debt for which he had become a surety could not be held to be otherwise than for legal necessity. In the result, he has accepted the appeal and, setting aside the decree of the learned trial Judge, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Feeling dissatisfied with this decree, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.