RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) DISPUTE relating to sale of 2 kanals land situated in the revenue estate of village Gothra Tappa Khori by the ancestors of the appellant-plaintiffs is under challenge in the present RSA. The appellant- plaintiffs having failed before both the courts below are in present appeal face to face with the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded in the case.
(2.) APPELLANT -plaintiffs Raj Kumar, Virender Singh, Surender Singh and Narender Singh brought a suit for possession in regard to land measuring 2 kanals on the ground that it was their ancestral property and as such coparcenary in nature in which they had equal rights with defendants No. 2 to 7, being members of a joint Hindu family. It is pleaded that appellant-plaintiff No. 1 Raj Kumar was son of Hari Singh and the remaining plaintiffs were sons of proforma defendant Sher Singh, they both being brothers inter se and respondents No. 5 to 7, being their sisters. Registered sale deeds dated 8.1.75 and 14.7.75 executed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 and respondent No. 6 respectively for ostensible consideration of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- are attacked on the ground that no sale consideration in fact had changed hands. It is, accordingly, pleaded that both the sale transactions were void and ineffective and these were neither for the benefit nor for any consideration or legal necessity. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sale deeds be ignored and possession be restored to the appellant-plaintiffs. This suit was contested by respondent No. 1-defendant pleading that the appellant-plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The averment of land being ancestral in the hands of vendors or that it was a coparcenary property was also denied. Plea of limitation was also raised. It was further pleaded that the suit was collusive between the vendors and the appellant- plaintiffs. Besides a plea of res judicata was also raised. In the alternative, it was also averred that sale transactions were validly affected for proper consideration and which was for legal necessity and for good management being for the benefit of estate of the vendors, who had migrated from the village lock stock and barrel and had settled in another village. The trial thereafter followed on the following issues :- 1. Whether the land in dispute is coparcenary property qua the plaintiffs and Hari Singh and Sher Singh vendors ? OPP. 2. Whether the alienation is without consideration and legal necessity as alleged ? OPP. 3. Whether the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is collusive and benami ? OPD 6. Whether the sale is an act of good management and for the benefit of the estate ? OPD. 7. Whether the court fee paid is deficient ? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD. 9. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for possession on the grounds stated in the plaint ? OPP.
(3.) PARTIES adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. Learned Sub Judge concluded that the appellant-plaintiffs had locus to file the suit being related to the vendors. However, the finding on the crucial issue Nos. 2 and 6 went against the appellant-plaintiffs. It was found by the trial Court that the sale transactions were for due consideration and legal necessity and the sales were for the good management of the estate of the vendors. Accordingly, the appellant-plaintiffs were non-suited. Having remained unsuccessful before the first appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present regular second appeal.;