Teja Singh, J. - (1.) IN order to be able to appreciate the facts of this appeal a reference to the following pedigree -table will be helpful: NODH SINGH Jiwan Singh Khewan Singli Jhaba Surjan Biru Mangal Chetu =Mst. Chahdo | (widow) Mal singh On 7 -3 -1973 Samvat, Mst. Chando along with Surjan, Biru, Mangal and Chetu sold their respective lands to Hira Singh and his son Kartar Singh by means of a deed of sale in which were mentioned the land sold by each vendor and the consideration that she and they received for it. On 21 -8 -2003 Mai Singh son of Surjan Singh filed the usual suit for a declaration that the sale made in Kartar Slnsh's favour being without consideration and necessity would not affect his reversionary interests. It may here be mentioned that by the date of the suit of the three sons of Khewan Singh, Mangal had died and so had Mst. Chando. Surjan died about Phagan 2004 when Mai Singh's suit was still pending in the trial Court. On this the Plaintiff applied for permission to claim possession for the entire land sold by his father and half of the land sold by Mst. Chando instead of the declaration that he had claimed originally and for amending the plaint to this extent. This application of his was accepted and he was allowed to amend the plaint. The vendee joined issue with the Plaintiff on almost every point and further pleaded that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the action and that the suit was barred by time. As regards the Plaintiff being the son of Surjan Singh there was no dispute between the parties. The trial Court held that he was the reversioners of the other vendors. it further held that the suit was within time, the property was ancestral qua the Plaintiff and he was entitled to maintain the action. The following were the particulars relating to the land sold and the, consideration received by the different vendors.
(2.) -Surjan Singh sold 49 bighas and 13 biswas for Rs. 859 -5 -3, Biru, Chetu and Mangal sold 27 bighas and 10 biswas for Rs. 913/14/6 and Mst. Chando sold 97 bigh.as and 8 biswas for Rs. 1274/10/3. The finding of the trial Court was that consideration and necessity for these sales had been established to the following extent: The sale by Surjan for Rs. 248/5/3, the sale by Biru, Mangal and Chetu for Rs. 248/5/3 and the sale by Mst. Chando for Rs. 1083/10/3. In the result the trial Court granted the Plaintiff a decree for possession of the entire land alienated by Surjan on payment of Rs. 248/5/3 and for possession of half the land alienated by Mt. Chando on pay -ment of Rs. 541/10/6. As regards the land sold by Biru, Chetu and Mangal he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was speculative. Against this decree Kartar Singh preferred an appeal to the District Judge while the Plaintiff put in cross -objections. The District Judge dismissed Kartar Singh's appeal but accepted the cross -objections and decreed the Plaintiff's suit in entirety. Kartar Singh is now the Appellant before us. Two questions were urged before us, one that of limitation and the other that of consideration and necessity for the sale. I would like to deal with the second question first.
(3.) THE point that the Appellant's counsel stressed before us was that since the alienation took place more than 30 years ago and the suit had been instituted after a very long time, it was wrong on the part of the lower Courts to expect direct and meticulous evidence on each and every item forming consideration for the sale and to penalise the Appellant for not producing that kind of evidence. Counsel argued that the result of the delay in suit was that not only the Appellant's father who initiated the transaction and paid the sale -money was dead but even the scribe, and the attesting witnesses of the sale -deed were no more. Counsel argued that Kartar Singh Appellant's name was also mentioned as a co -vendee with his father, but he was just a child then and by the very nature of things he could not depose to any circumstances relating to the sale from his personal knowledge. In addition counsel emphasised the following points: (i) Though Mst. Chando was a limited owner the immediate reversioners of her husband not only consented to the sale by her but sold their own lands along with her. (ii) Surjan vendor's son, i.e., Mal Singh Plaintiff, was alive at the time of the sale and it is not even alleged that either Surjan was addicted to evil habits or he had any motive to injure his son by throwing away his property for nothing. On the other hand the evidence examined in the case establishes that the father and son had always been living amicably and together, (iii) The sale was evidenced by a registered document and mention was made in the document of the necessity of some of the items constituting the consideration, (iv) The Plaintiff is now about 40 years old and he has not been able to explain why he did not consider it necessary to challenge the validity of the sale for all these years, (v) Of the vendors Biru and Chetu are still alive but the Plaintiff did not have the courage of putting any one of them in the witness -box. (vi) Hiru has a son who was born sometime after the sale; but no suit to challenge the sale has been made even on his behalf. (vii) Hira Singh, father of Kartar Singh Appellant, was not a money lender. He was a Jat and was employed in the Army and there is nothing to show that he did or could take advantage of the vendors' position.. (viii) It is in the evidence of Mt. Jasmer Kaur, mother of Kartar Singh Appellant, that Ralla, her husband's Mukhtar who used to keep his accounts is dead and the books of account have been eaten up by white ants. (ix) That Mal Singh Plaintiff himself did not come in the witness -box.;