RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the trial Court whereby their suit for declaration and possession was dismissed and further appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellants filed the instant suit against one Bhalle Ram (predecessor -in -interest of the respondents) and their father Krishan Kumar (defendant No.2) alleging that defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question which was ancestral property and which he could not alienate, the same being Joint Hindu Family property, and that the said sale was without legal necessity. It was further pleaded that Krishan Kumar -defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question to Bhalle Ram -defendant No.1 in order to spend the consideration for immoral habits only, and thus, the appellants sought a decree for declaration that the sale of the suit property made vide a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1968 was illegal, null and void, and not binding upon them. They further sought the relief of possession of the suit property. Upon notice, defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex - parte and the case was contested by defendant No.1 -Bhalle Ram, who took a plea that defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question to him for a valid consideration of Rs.10,000 for a legal necessity and that the property in question was not ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, and as such, the plaintiffs had no locus -standi to challenge the sale. It was further pleaded that the sale was for the benefit of the estate. Certain legal objections were also raised and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the suit property is co -parcenary property as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the parties constituted Joint Hindu Family as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are governed by Hindu Law in the matters of alienation as alleged? OPP (objected to). 4. Whether the sale deed dated 18.11.68 in favour of the defendant set No.1 by defendant set No.2 was for legal necessity and for consideration? OPP 5. Whether the alienation was for the benefit of the estate as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 10. Relief. 4. Issue No.9 was treated as preliminary issue and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff -appellants vide order dated 16.10.1984. At the time of final disposal of the suit, issues No.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiff -appellants, whereas issues No.4 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants. Thus, in view of the findings on issues No.4 and 5 to the effect that the sale was for legal necessity and bonafide consideration and for the benefit of the estate, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.1984.;