R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 26.11. 2009 R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 Randhir ......Appellant Versus Manohar and another .......Respondents R.S.A.No. 2027 of 2009 (O&M) Virender ......Appellant Versus Manohar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant (s). **** SABINA, J. Vide this judgment RSA Nos. 2020 and 2027 of 2009 will be disposed of as the point in issue in both the cases is similar. Randhir Singh had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession claiming that the said property had R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 2 been inherited by his father Indraj and hence, the same could not be sold by him without legal necessity. Manohar, on the other hand, had filed a suit for permanent injunction that Indraj, Surender, Virender, Randhir and Narender be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession as he had purchased the suit land from Indraj. The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in the appeal filed by Randhir read as under:- “2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession against the defendants, inter-alia on the ground that suit land measuring 25 kanals 8 marlas, as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, situated within the area of Village Charkhi Tehsil Charkhi-Dadri, District Bhiwani was inherited by defendant no.2 Indraj vendor, the father of the plaintiff, from his adoptive father Shri Ram. The plaintiff has shown the relationship in the pedigree table described in para no.1 of the trial court judgment. It is further alleged that the suit property was the coparcenary property and joint Hindu family property of him and defendant No.2 and his other brothers. The defendant no.2 has sold the suit land without any legal necessity because he was drunkard and the sale deed No.2614 dated 22.3.1984 is without consideration and it is an act R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 3 of fraud. Therefore, the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and his brothers. Hence, this suit. 3. On notice of the suit, defendants appeared in the Court. In his written statement, defendant no.1 has alleged the preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit; cause of action; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it is alleged that the suit property being the coparcenary property is vehemently denied. It is pleaded that the suit land was sold for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and, therefore, the defendant no.1 became the owner in possession of the suit property vide aforesaid sale deed. Vendor defendant no.2 was the absolute owner of the said land, therefore, he had every right to sell the same. It is pleaded that the defendant no.2, in fact, was under heavy debt because in the year 1977, he had taken loan of Rs.24,000/- by way of mortgaging his land from P.A.R.D.B. Dadri, to run his dairy business. The said loan was obtained from the welfare of the family. So, to pay off the said loan, defendant No.2 contacted with the answering defendant to sell his land and at the time of agreement to sell his land, he received Rs.2000/- as earnest money and remaining amount of Rs.28,000/- was to be paid on 31.3.1984. But the sale deed was executed by the R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 4 defendant No.2 on 22.3.1984 after receiving Rs.28,000/- as cash and on the same date, Indraj vendor deposited Rs.29,595/- in cash in his loan account and settled the same. Prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether Indraj defendant and his sons form a joint H.U.F. ?OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the land in dispute is a joint HUF property?OPP. 3. Whether the defendant no.1 is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration?OPD. 4. Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good management of defendant No.2?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 7. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 8. Whether the present suit is bad for non-compliance of Order 7(1)J?OPD. 9. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous?OPD. R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 5 10. Relief.” Vide order dated 23.7.2003, the onus of issue No.2 was shifted upon the plaintiff and the issue No.4 was re-framed, which reads as under:- “4. Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good management on the part of defendant No.2 as he had legal necessity to sell the suit land in favour of defendant No.1? OPD The suit filed by Randhir Singh was dismissed by both the Courts below, whereas, the suit filed by Manohar was decreed by both the Courts below After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that these appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. The Courts below have held that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Indraj. The question that requires consideration in these appeals is as to whether the land owned by Indraj had been sold for legal necessity. Both the Courts below, after perusing the agreement to sell Ex.D-1 and sale deed dated 22.3.1984 EX.D-2, held that it was clearly established that loan had been taken by Indraj from the bank. As per Ex.DW2-A, Rs. 29,595/- had been deposited by Indraj with the bank on 22.3.1984. Ex.DW-2/B was the attested copy of the ledger. The said loan had been taken by Indraj in the year 1977-78 R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 6 for dairy purposes. Since Indraj was a chronic defaulter, he sold the land in dispute to clear the outstanding loan. In these circumstances, the Courts below held that it could not be said that Indraj had sold the suit property without any legal necessity. The Courts further held that there was nothing to establish on record that Indraj was a liquor addict or that no consideration had passed between the parties at the time of execution of the sale deed by Indraj in favour of Manohar. In these circumstances, the suit filed by Randhir for declaration and possession was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Since Manohar had become owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed by Indraj in his favour, the decree for permanent injunction was rightly passed restraining Indraj, Surender, Virender, Randhir and Narender from interfering in the peaceful possession of Manohar. No substantial question of law arises in these regular second appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 26, 2009 anita