Decided on July 28,1997

TEJ RAM Appellant


ARUN KUMAR GOD,J - (1.)This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, whereby the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, has been upheld. Bharat Bhushan (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) is the transferee of the land measuring 1 -2 0 bighas (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) by the father of the plaintiffs Niranjan Singh (hereinafter referred as the defendant No. 3), Girdhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as the defendant -2) is the father of Bharat Bhushan transferee
(2.)Sale effected by defendant No. 3 of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 came to be questioned by the plaintiffs on the basis that the said property being ancestral in nature could not have been transferred by defendant No. 3 either under law or custom governing such alienation According to the plaintiffs their father defendant No.3 was holding enough agricultural land besides having rental income and salary while he was employed in I.T.B.P. and above all he was having an apple orchard which also yielded income to him, therefore, there was no justification of the transfer effected by him in favour of defendant No. 1 Further case of the plaintiffs was that Girdhari Lal defendant No. 2 who is father of defendant No 1 was a close relation of defendant No 3 had obtained the sale deed after exercising under pressure upon the said defendant in favour of his son i.e defendant No. 1. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the consideration of Rs. 1000 shown in the sale deed was sham and in fact nothing has been paid to defendant No. 3.
3. The suit was contested and resisted which according to the defendants was bad for mis -joinder of parties and the same has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee as also not maintainable in its present form. Flea of land being ancestral raised by the plaintiffs was controverted and the sale was pleaded to be for legal necessity. According to the defendants the sale consideration of Rs. 1000 was correctly shown in the sale deed and the money was urgently required by defendant No. 3 and his wife for raising an orchard at Village Tellingi. Not only this but since defendant No. 3 wanted to construct a building at Peo a sum of Rs 5000 more was advanced to defendant No. 3 on 14 -4 -1973. The suit was claimed to have been got filed by Niranjan Singh from his so is through his wife and thus it was pleaded to be collusive. Whereas defendant No 3 in his written statement admitted that the laud in suit was ancestral in nature arid sale was not aimed at defeating the legitimate clam of the plaintiffs.

(4.)in replication filed by the plaintiffs to both the written statements, pleas raised on behalf of the defendants were controverted and parties went to trial oh the following issues ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.