Ranganathan, J. - (1.) Nawal Singh sold 102 bighas of land to Nathu Ram for Rs. 8000/- by a sale dated 1lth February, 1952. He also executed a sale-deed in respect of 90 bighas of land to Sardha Ram for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- on 28th October, 1952. There were recitals in the two sale-deeds regarding the necessity for the sale. The first sale-deed stated:"(1) The land is Banjar Qadim. According to the law in force, it is obligatory to break and cultivate this land. Otherwise the Government would give it out by auction to some other person. (2) I need money to bring other land under the plough, to sink a new well and for other agricultural works, such as purchases of bullocks etc. " The recitals in the second sale-deed dated 28-10-1952 ran as follows: "I have absolutely sold the aforesaid banjar qadim land...... for meeting my own needs, repairing the well, installing a persian wheel, purchasing camel, and reclaiming the aforesaid banjar qadim jungle land."
(2.) Nawal Singh's heirs filed suits for setting aside the sales on the ground that they were governed by Punjab Agricultural customs in matters of alienation, that the land was ancestral and that the alienation had been made without legal necessity and, therefore, would not affect their reversionary rights on the death of the vendor. Both suits were consolidated and tried together.
(3.) The suits were dismissed by the sub-judge and the first appeals were dismissed by the senior subordinate judge. Second appeals were preferred which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Judge held that the sale in favour of Nathu Ram was without legal necessity except to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,000/-- which was actually utilised by the vendor for the sinking of a new well in his remaining lands', and that the sale in favour of Sardha Ram was entirely without necessity. There were appeals against the order of the learned single Judge to a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench held that, so far as the sale in favour of Nathu Ram was concerned, the learned single Judge had fallen into an error in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below. The Court proceeded to observe:- "The Courts below found and on evidence that bulk of Nawal Singh's land was banjar qadim. It has been further found that under the Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, notices were issued to Nawal Singh that if the land was not broken up it would be taken under that Act and leased out to third party. There were no irrigation facilities available for the land and to sink a well money was needed. There is ample evidence on the record on which these evidences are based. The vendor has come into the witness box and stated that the money was raised for this purpose. The statement of the vendee was accepted by the Courts of fact. In this situation, there was no justification to displace the judgments of the Court below with regard to the sale in favour of Nathu Ram (Ex. D-3). The rule is firmly settled that the vendee either established the existence of necessity in fact or a bona fide inquiry that there was necessity for the sale. If he satisfies either one of the two requirements the sale would be held for necessity or an act of good management, as the case may be ...... It cannot be denied that for an agriculturist to bring under his plough his land is a matter of necessity and if some land is sold to bring the bulk of the land under cultivation, it would certainly be an act of necessity as well as an act of good management. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in upsetting the sale in favour of Nathu Rarn.";