R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2011 Sukhdev Singh ......Appellant Versus Ajmer Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of house and bara situated in village Mokha Majra The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Ram Kishan, father of the plaintiff, was owner of the property in question. He had inherited the same from his fore-fathers and thus, the property in question in the hands of Ram Kishan was his ancestral property. R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Hence, Ram Kishan could not sell the property in question without the consent of the other coparceners or without any legal necessity. Sale deed dated 16.5.1994 executed by Ram Kishan, defendant No.10, in favour of other defendants was illegal, null and void. Defendants No. 1 to 5, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. Defendants No.6 to 9 denied the fact that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Ram Kishan. It was averred that the answering defendants had purchased the suit property for valuable considerations. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Ram Kishan qua the plaintiffs? OPP. 2. Whether the land in dispute was joint Hindu Family property OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff and his brother are governed by custom in the matter of alienation? OPP 4.Whether the sale deed dated 16.5.1994 is not binding on the plaintiff and his brother as alleged and if prove, its effect ? OPP 5. Whether Ram Kishan had legal necessity to sell the property by way of sale deed dated 16.5.1994? OPD 6. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ? OPD R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2008 (O&M) 3 7. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 8. Whether the suit has been valued properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP 9. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the Courts have held that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Ram Kishan. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the sale deed executed by Ram Kishan dated 16.5.1994 in favour of defendants No.6 to 9 was for legal necessity and was legal and valid. In this regard, it had come on record that Ram Kishan and his family were initially resided in village Mokha Majra but for the last many years they were resided in village Nanhera. It has also come on record that after selling the suit property Ram Kishan had constructed a house and had purchased property in village Nanhera. Plaintiff also admitted in his cross-examination that his father had started resided in village Nanhera about 40-45 years ago and before that he was resided in R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2008 (O&M) 4 village Mokha Majra. He also admitted that his father had purchased property at village Nanhera and had, thereafter, constructed a house. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit property had been sold by Ram Kishan to enable him to invest the sale consideration in village Nanhera. The plaintiff had also admitted that his father had sold 1-1/4 killa of land to Surja Ram but the said sale deed had not been challenged by him till date. After the death of his father, he had entered into an agreement to sell with some property dealers @ ` 25,00,000/- per acre. Ram Kishan had sold the suit property to defendants No.6 to 9 for a consideration of ` 35,000/-. Plaintiff also admitted that the suit property had been sold to defendants for a consideration of ` 35,000/-. Thus, it was established on record that defendants No. 6 to 9 were purchasers for consideration. The Courts below, in the facts and circumstances of the present case had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 07, 2011 anita