KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. MEHR CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Ambala decreeing the suit of minor members of a joint Hindu family who attacked an alienation made by the karta of the family. In order to understand the facts of this family, it may perhaps be necessary to give the pedigree table of the plaintiffs' joint Hindu family.

(2.) ON 26th August 1931, Ram Sarup who is the grand -father of the present plaintiffs mortgaged with possession the suit land for Rs. 10,500 to defendants 1 to 3. The consideration was as follows:

(3.) ON 11th June 1944, plaintiffs 1 to 5 who are the minor grandsons of Ram Sarup the original mortgagor brought a suit against the vendees defendants 1 to 3 and against their fathers defendants 4 and 5 alleging that the property in dispute which was mortgaged and sold was joint family property and that the alienations -mortgage and sale -were without consideration and necessity and were not for the benefit of the family, and they prayed for possession of the land. The vendees, defendants 1 to 3 (hereinafter called the vendees), in reply pleaded that the alienation was for consideration and necessity and for the benefit of the family, that they made bona fide enquiries from the sons and creditors of Ram Sarup and learnt that Ram Sarup mortgagor was indebted to several other persons, namely, Lakshmi Chand, Kashmiri Lal, Shib Ram, Radha Kishen, Ram Partap, Madan Lal etc., and that they also made enquiries from the sons of Ram Sarup who were majors in the family and when both the sons supported the representation made by Ram Sarup it was only then that they advanced the money on the mortgage. With regard to the sale, they pleaded that Rs. 900 out of the sale price were paid to Ram Saran Dass a cousin of the vendors and Rs. 100 was earnest money. They also pleaded that the mortgage was executed with the consent of all the adult members of the family and as they were the fathers of the plaintiffs, the latter have no right to challenge the mortgage -deed. On this, several issues were raised of which only three are relevant to the appeal: