- (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate judge, Karnal, decreeing in part the plaintiffs' suit and granting them a decree for a declaration that the sale in suit shall not bind them except to the extent of Rs. 4,5257- only, on payment of which they would be entitled to claim joint possession of the house in dispute.
(2.) ON 8-12-1952 Chancier Parkash, defendant No. 1, sold the house in suit for Rs. 8,000/- by a registered deed to Ram Parkash, defendant No. 2. On the same day, he also executed a rent-note in favour of the vendee. Later on 2-8-1956 on the basis of this rent-note, Ram Parkash obtained an order from the Rent Controller for the ejectment of Chancier Parkash from the house in suit. In execution of this order, he applied for the delivery of possession. Thereupon, on 1-10-1956, Radhe sham and others, plaintiffs 1 to 5, the sons, and shrimati Puma Devi, plaintiff No. 6, the wife of the vendor, brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 8-12-1952 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void and ineffective as against them, as the house in dispute was the joint Hindu family property and the sale had been made without consideration and family necessity. It was also prayed that the plaintiffs were not liable to be dispossessed from the house in question in execution of the order of the Rent controller obtained by defendant No. 2 against defendant No. 1.
(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 2, wno. Inter alia, pleadad that the house in dispute was not the joint Hindu family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1; and that the sale made by defendant No. in his favour was for consideration and necessity. It was also stated that the house in suit had previously been mortgaged with possession on the basis of which a money-decree for sale of the mortgaged property by auction, had been passed against defendant no. 1. The previous mortgagee was getting the house sold by auction in execution of this decree and defendant No. 1 had no other alternative except to sell the same.;