Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 2509-C of 2015 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 38 days in re-filing the appeal.For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the clerk of the counsel for the appellants, the same is allowed. Delay of 38 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 843 of 2015 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar dated 23.09.2013, whereby the suit filed by the appellants plaintiffs to the effect that they are co-owners in possession of land measuring 197 Kanal 10 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 254/237, Khatoni No. 484 to 488 situated at Village Moda Khera, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, detailed in Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 along with their father Gulab Singh respondent No. 1, defendant No. 1 as co-parceners and members of Joint Hindu Family and that the execution and registration of sale deed No. 1610 dated 29.07.2010 by Gulab Singh respondent No. 1, defendant No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 in respect of 320/3965 share i.e. land measuring 16 Kanal situated at Village Moda Khera, Tehsil and District Hisar out of the joint land is null and void ab-initio, without legal necessity and without consideration and for permanent injunction has been dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellants plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar on 20.09.2014.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the land, mentioned above, is an ancestral property and, therefore, the same could not have been sold by respondent No. 1, defendant No. 1 unless there was a legal necessity. That aspect having not been proved on the part of the respondents-defendants, the sale of an ancestral property cannot sustain. His further contention is that the sale deed No. 1610 dated 29.07.2010 is a result of fraud having been played upon respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2, defendant No. 2 for no consideration and, therefore, the appellants plaintiffs and respondent No. 1, defendant No. 1 are not bound by the said sale deed nor does it confer any right upon respondent No. 2, defendant No. 2. He, thus, contends that the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
(3.) This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted in the light of the admitted fact and that too, in the pleadings that the father of respondent No. 1, defendant No. 1 suffered a decree dated 22.04.1972, whereby the ancestral land was partioned between his four sons. Once the land has been received by the respondents-defendants through a Court decree, the same no more continues to be an ancestral one and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below, on this aspect, cannot be faulted with.;