Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.9.2011 Jal Singh and Another ... Appellants Versus Ram Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondents No.2 to 6 proceeded ex parte. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Plaintiff No.1 Jal Singh and plaintiff No.2 Padam Singh, having failed in two rounds of litigation, have approached this Court by instituting the present regular second appeal. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration praying that the sale deed dated 12.6.1986, executed by their father- defendant No.5 to the suit in favour defendants No.1 to 4, be declared as illegal, null and void on the ground that he could not have sold the ancestral property in which they had coparcenary rights as at the time of sale of land, there was no legal necessity. Furthermore, the sale was Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 2 made by father of the plaintiffs as he was addicted to vices of consumption of liquor and gambling. The relief sought in the suit was opposed by defendants No.1 to 4 in their written statement by taking a categoric stand that the land was purchased by defendants No.1 to 4 after paying a valuable consideration to defendant No.5 and the sale was made by defendant No.5 to defendants No.1 to 4, out of legal necessity. Defendant No.5 had not caused appearance, hence, he was proceeded against ex parte. In the present case, the sale deed, executed in the year 1986, was challenged in the year 2002 i.e. after a period of more than 16 years. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court had formulated the following issues:- “1. Whether the sale deed No. 1025 dated 12.6.1986 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs? OPP 2. Whether the mutation No. 4534 dated 15.6.1992 sanctioned on the basis of the impugned sale deed is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP 2A. Whether the sale deed No. 1025 dated 12.6.1986 was executed by defendant Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 3 No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 for legal necessity? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi nor any cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief”. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it has returned the following findings:- 1. That in the sale deed dated 12.6.1986 it has been sated in categoric terms that the same was executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 and also stated that the seller required money for his bonafide needs. 2. The trial Court further held that the plaintiffs have not produced any document or cogent evidence to prove that at the time of execution of sale deed they were minor and on what date they attained majority. Thus, filing of the suit, at a very belated stage, proved that the sale of the suit land was made by father of the plaintiffs as an act of good Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 4 management and for legal necessity. Therefore, the imputation that father of the plaintiffs suffered from bad vices of consumption of liquor and gambling was raised at a very belated stage. 3. The trial Court further held that it has been admitted by PW.1 Jal Singh, one of the plaintiffs, in his cross- examination that his father had inherited ancestral land. Out of the said land, the suit land was sold and still 3½ kanals of land remained with them. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Ranga Rao (died) and Others v. G. Venkata Krishna Rao and Others 1996(1)All India Hindu Law Reporter 337 to say that the burden of proof is on the alienee to show that the land was sold for the legal necessity. It is submitted that since defendant No.5-father of the plaintiffs had not appeared, therefore, it should be held that there was no legal necessity to sell the suit land. Thus, the sale deed ought to be declared as null and void. The sale deed is on record as Ex.P3, wherein it has been specifically stated that the land was sold as money was required by father of the plaintiffs/appellants for his bonafide needs. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding of fact that in the circumstances of the case, viz delay in assailing the said recital in the sale deed by not proving as to when the plaintiffs attained majority and the fact that even after the sale, land remained in the hands of the plaintiffs, it is sufficient to discard the plea that the land was not sold out Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 2010 5 of legal necessity. The sale was made for good management and out of legal necessity. The question of law as formulated by learned counsel that onus is upon the alienee to prove that the sale made by him was for legal necessity in no way arises for consideration of this Court as the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below over-rule the same. Thus, the categoric finding of fact returned by both the Courts below that the sale was made by father of plaintiffs for good management and out of legal necessity, is sufficient for this Court to hold that no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 05, 2011 “DK”