R.S.A No.2410 of 1989 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objections No.10.C of 2000 and R.S.A No.2410 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : May 07, 2010 Teku, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dharampal and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.B.Singh and Mr.Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the cross-objector/respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for possession. The grounds taken were that the sale was of ancestral property and was not made for legal necessity. It was further alleged that respondents were minor at the time when the sale deeds were made. Both the Courts below decreed the suit, even though the learned lower appellate Court held that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- of the two sale deeds, half the amount was spent by the father for R.S.A No.2410 of 1989 (O&M) ::2:: the benefit of the estate. At the time when this appeal was filed no questions of law were proposed but thereafter the following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court that the appellant-defendant has only been able to prove legal necessity to the extent of 50% of the sale consideration which does not validate the sale deeds, is contrary to the settled legal proposition that the vendee is only required to establish the necessity of transaction, and not how the consideration furnished by him was utilized by the vendor for family necessity ? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-defendant made proper and bona fide inquiry as to existence of the legal necessity ? iii) Whether by way of evidence on record the appellant-defendant has been able to duly establish the existence of legal necessity on the part of the vendor/respondent No.2 in executing the sale deeds in question ? iv) Whether the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are contrary to the evidence on record and the settled law ?” In the cross-objections, respondent No.2-Cross-objector has challenged that portion of the order of the lower appellate Court wherein it had held that half the money obtained by the father was for the benefit of the estate contending that in fact the entire sale was vitiated on the ground that there was no benefit to the estate at all. As regards, questions No.(ii), (iii) and (iv), both the Courts found that except for the bald testimoney of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the appellant, no evidence was led with regard to the legal necessity. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to R.S.A No.2410 of 1989 (O&M) ::3:: persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question No. (i), it would be seen that the learned lower appellate Court has not found that 50% of the sale was for legal necessity but only that it was for the benefit of the estate, which is a concept totally different from the concept of the legal necessity. As regards the assertion in the Cross Objections, counsel for the applicant has not been able to persuade me that the finding of fact recorded in this regard by the lower appellate Court is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant/cross-objector, this appeal, as well as the Cross Objections are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 07, 2010. JUDGE `kk'