RSA No. 791 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 791 of 2008 Date of decision: December 2 ,2008 Pardeep Kumar and another ..Appellant. Versus Balwinder Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal,Advocate for the Appellants. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right, title, or interest therein as the impugned sale deed dated 11.1.1985 entered at Serial No.322 Book No.1 on 15.1.1985 in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Fatehpur Pundri is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and further a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land or alienating the same as a consequential relief, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, one Kehar Singh grand father of the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 11.1.1985 alienated the suit land in favour of the respondents for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 4000/-. The plaintiffs/appellants have challenged the said sale deed on the ground that the aforesaid sale deed is illegal as the suit land was Joint Hindu Family Property in the hands of Kehar Singh, so he could not legally sell the suit land except for legal necessity or act of good management. However, in respect of the impugned sale, neither there was any legal necessity nor act of good management and no consideration at all passed to the vendor. The appellants RSA No. 791 of 2008 2 have a legal right to challenge the impugned sale being coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family which owned the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondents. Apart from various preliminary objections, it was stated that the father of the plaintiffs knew about the sale from the very beginning and in fact he had given consent to the same. The vendees were put in possession of the suit land under the impugned sale deed and are continuing in possession of the same which was well known to the father of the appellants, till he expired in the year 1995. The sale deed was executed by the grand father of the appellants for legal necessity for domestic expenses and other needs and thus the dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing both the sides and going through the evidence available on record, the courts below dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that father of the appellant was in the knowledge of the impugned sale deed and till his death in the year 1995, he never challenged the sale deed and the said sale deed was for legal necessity as it has come in evidence that money was required for giving 'Bhat' in the marriage of nephew, apart from expenses for domestic requirement. The courts below also recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the revenue record that the respondents have been shown to be owners in possession of the suit land and it has been very much clear that the appellants were never in possession of the suit land neither they were owners. Learned counsel for the appellants were unable to controvert the above stated findings of fact recorded by the courts below. RSA No. 791 of 2008 3 No substantial question of law arises. No merits. Dismissed. December 2, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE