SIRI KISHAN Vs. SANWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging Judgment and decree dated 24-9- 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani wherein judgment and decree of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Bhiwani dated 31-3-1967 has been reversed. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants which was decreed by the Sub Judge has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellants who are sons of defendant-respondents 3 and 4 Ganga Ram and Bhtm Sain filed Civil Suit No. 94/ 572 of 1966 claiming joint possession of the suit land. They challenged the sale deed dated 24-2-1956 executed by defendant-respondents 3 and 4 in favour of defendant- respondents 1 and 2 alleging that it was without consideration and legal necessity. They further claimed that the suit land was ancestral in relation to the plain tiff-appellants and was a joint Hindu/coparcenary property. The case set up is that if the sale deed executed on 24-2-1956 was shown to be for consideration, then the same had been executed without any legal necessity nor it could be an act of good management. Therefore, it was asserted that the alienation of land by sale deed dated 24-2-1956 was not binding on the plaintiff-appellants.

(3.) Defendant-respondents 1 and 2 the vendees contested the suit and raised various preliminary objections concerning its maintainability and they also questioned the locus stand! of the plaintiff-appellants. It was further claimed that the suit was barred by time and that there was no cause of action. The assertion of the plaintiff-appellants that they were sons of defendant-respondents 3 and 4 was also disputed. On merit, it was averred that the suit land was sold for consideration and legal necessity. It was .further averred that the vendors were having their business in Bihar and the sale was necessitated on account of requirement of funds in the business. It was claimed that after 1957 the vendors had become very rich persons. The sale was claimed to be for consideration and legal necessity. As the sale was for benefit of the family, it was binding on the plaintiff-appellants. However, the defendant-respondents 1 and 2 denied the fact that the nature of the land was ancestral.