GHULAM BHIK Vs. RUSTOM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rustam Ali adult and Didar Ali minor, sons of Fateh Mohd. Rajput, defendant 2 instituted a suit challenging the sale of the land in suit by their father Fateh Mohammad in favour of Ghulam Bhik defendant 1 on the ground that the land being ancestral qua the plaintiffs the sales were not for consideration and legal necessity and therefore not binding on the plaintiffs under the rule of custom governing the parties.

(2.) Ghulam Bhik defendant 1 admitted that the parties were governed by custom and that the land in suit was ancestral qua the plaintiffs. He, however, maintained that the alienations were for considerations and legal necessity.

(3.) Now, the alienations were made on the foot of two sale deeds dated 16th November 1937 and 25 July 1940 for Rs. 900 each. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issue: 1. Are the sales in suit for consideration and legal necessity?