- (1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge, Nalagarh, dated 27-4-2005, dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the sale of 6 bighas 5 biswas of agricultural land effected on 29-2-1992 by Mangtu for Rs. 600 shall not affect his reversionary interests, as the land was ancestral and had been sold for no justifiable necessity. Mangfcu vendor is an Adna Malik in village Lodi Majra, and it was represented in the sale-deed that he required money for purchasing stamp paper to complete the sale, for meeting registration expenses and for payment of Malkana dues. It is admitted by the Plaintiff that this land was mortgaged with Bannu and Sadhu for Rs. 550 and that mortgage was never contested. The vendees now are Bannu and Nikku, who have purchased the land for Rs. 600 and it has to be seen whether the vendees have succeeded in proving legal necessity for Rs. 50. No liability in respect of any Malkana dues payable by the vendor has been proved to have existed before the sale nor has any amount been proved to have been paid to anybody to wipe of that liability. Obviously, when there is no necessity for the sale itself, the fact that registration and stamp expenses had to be met to execute the document cannot justify the transfer. The Plaintiff was a minor when the sale took place and he brought the present suit within three years of his attaining majority. At the time of sale his brother Telu was in existence, but he did not impugn the alienation and the trial Court relying upon the provisions of Section 9, Limitation Act, has held that since time began to run against Telu, the minority of the Plaintiff could not interrupt the running of the period prescribed for a declaratory suit. The suit has consequently been held to be statute-barred. The view taken by the trial Judge cannot be endorsed, Each reversioner under custom has an independent right in respect of the cause of action that arises on the alienation of ancestral property and the mere fact that Telu had attained majority at the time of sale and had not attacked it cannot debar the present Plaintiff from bringing a suit, in his own right which he derives by virtue of his relationship with the common ancestor from whom the property has descended, It has been held in Jati Khubi V/s. Matu, 1937 AIR(Lah) 653 that the right of the reversioners to contest the alienation of the last male holder is not a joint and indivisible right and the omission by one reversioner to sue does not debar the Ors. from suing at all. Each one of the reversioners has an independent and individual right to sue though the decree obtained by one may enure for the benefit of all. A similar view was taken by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court Elahi Bakhsh V/s. Umar Bakhsh, 1944 AIR(Lah) 409 in which it was held that the Plaintiff's right to sue for possession was not derived from or through any other reversioner but was derived from the customary rules. In Jawahir Singh V/s. Udai Parkash, 1926 AIR(PC) 16: 48 All. 152, it was laid down by their Lordships that a suit brought by the younger son within three years of attaining majority to avoid the sale is not barred by limitation although the eldest son attained his majority more than three years earlier and had taken no steps to question the alienation. The suit of the Plaintiff was, in my opinion, thug evidently within time and the learned District Judge has erred in throwing it off as barred by limitation.
(2.) It now becomes necessary to decide whether the land alienated is ancestral qua the Plaintiff. [Their Lordships referred to the entries in Revenue papers, which they held raised the presumption that the land was ancestral, and going through the evidence held that the presumption was not rebutted. The judgment then proceeded:] For the reasons given above, we hold that the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving the suit land to be ancestral, that his suit is within time and that there was no necessity for the sale. The appeal is accepted with costs and the Plaintiff's suit decreed.;