IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4124 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 9, 2011. Nisha and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Asha Rani and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma,, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for respondent no.8. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.12402-C of 2010 Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of four days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. RSA No.4124 of 2010 RSA No.4124 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 11.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Garhshankar, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for decree for declaration that the land in dispute is ancestral and joint Hindu family coparcenary property consisting of appellants-plaintiffs and respondents- defendants no.1 to 4 and that however, defendant no.1 executed a sale deed dated 25.01.1994 in favour of respondent-defendant no.5 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of defendant no.5 which is illegal and void as the same was effected by defendant no.1 without any right, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in possession of appellants-plaintiffs in any manner. Alternative suit for joint possession has also been claimed. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants denying the fact that land in dispute is ancestral Hindu coparcenary property consisting of appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants no.1 to 4 and at the same time plea has been taken that defendant no.1 used to remain ill and he used to spent huge money for medicines and he was in need of money for medicines etc. and that he had sold the land in dispute for legal necessity and that sale deed was validly 2 RSA No.4124 of 2010 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of respondent no.5 for valuable consideration. Suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing that suit for joint possession during life time of father is not maintainable as the same will amount to seeking partition of the property during life time of father/Karta. It was also observed that a coparcener has no right to seek injunction restraining Karta from alienating coparcenary property and the alienation can be challenged only on the ground that the same was not for legal necessity. However, in this case, legal necessity has been proved that the vendor required money for his medical expenses. Appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that he restricts his claim only to the extent that the sale deed was without any legal necessity and that it was for respondents-defendants to prove the same was legal necessity. However, it was held by both the courts that the said onus was discharged by the respondents-defendants. There is recital in the sale deed that defendant no.1 required money for his medical expenses. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial 3 RSA No.4124 of 2010 question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 9, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4