Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 Date of decision : September 24, 2010 Sukhbir ....Appellant versus Manohar Lal and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff no. 1 Sukhbir is in second appeal after both the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent no. 4) remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiffs are sons of Manohar Lal defendant-respondent no. 1. Plaintiffs challenged sale deed dated 28.6.2002 regarding 6 kanal 10 marlas land in suit and sale deed dated 5.7.2002 regarding 32 kanals 6 marlas land in suit by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 alleging that aforesaid suit land was ancestral and coparcenary property and the sale deeds were executed without consideration and legal necessity. Defendant no. 1 controverted the plaint allegations and Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 -2- pleaded that he had taken loan for tractor and tubewell from Land Mortgage Bank and there was outstanding loan amount of Rs 1,21,000/-. On account of drought conditions, there was not good yield of the crop and therefore, defendant no. 1 had been taking loan for fodder etc. for the cattle and for other purposes. Defendant no. 1 after discussing the matter with the plaintiffs sold suit land in the interest of family. The land was sold for Rs 3,06,500/- out of which amount of Rs 1,21,120/- was deposited in the bank towards outstanding loan amount and interest and trolley was purchased for Rs 55,000/- and loans of other persons were also paid by defendant no. 1. He was sole owner of the suit land. Plaint allegations were controverted. Defendants no. 2 and 3 also separately took the same stand as that of defendant no. 1. They also stated about private loans taken by defendant no. 1 which were required to be repaid and were repaid. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.2006 dismissed plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Jude, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 18.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved, only plaintiff no. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the case file. Documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs themselves Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 -3- revealed that defendant no. 1 had purchased 6 kanals 10 marlas land in suit from Chhotta Rani etc. Even plaintiff no. 1-appellant admitted this fact in cross-examination. It is, thus, manifest that plaintiffs made patently false averment that the said suit land was ancestral or coparcenary property. As regards the remaining suit land measuring 32 kanals 6 marlas, only copy of jamabandi has been produced which does not depict that the suit land was ancestral or coparcenary property. The plaintiffs have not led any other evidence to prove this fact. Consequently, courts below have rightly held that the entire suit land is not proved to be coparcenary or ancestral property. In view thereof, the plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited. In addition to the aforesaid, the sale deeds have been executed for consideration and legal necessity. Plaintiff no. 1 also himself admitted that before purchasing the suit land, vendees- defendants no. 2 and 3 had come to them (plaintiffs) and had made enquiries. Plaintiff no. 1-appellant admitted that his father defendant-respondent no. 1 had taken loan from Land Mortgage Bank for tractor and tubewell. There is also recital in the impugned sale deeds regarding sale of suit land for legal necessities. Courts below have rightly held that the suit land has been sold for legal necessity. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that loan amount of the bank was repaid on 28.6.2002 i.e. date of first sale deed and therefore, there was no legal necessity for sale of the remaining suit land vide sale deed dated 5.7.2002. The contention Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 -4- cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any part of judgments of the courts below to substantiate this contention. Moreover, vendees have produced various receipts to depict that defendant no. 1 repaid his loan amounts. In addition to it, plaintiffs themselves produced notice Ex. P4 received from the bank by defendant no. 1 regarding outstanding loan amount. It is also worth mentioning that defendant no. 1 in his written statement also outlined various necessities for sale of the suit land. However, while entering into witness box, defendant no. 1 turned dishonest and even went to the extent of stating that he had not executed the sale deeds. However, he admitted his signatures on the affidavit filed with the written statement. He also admitted his signatures on the impugned sale deeds. He also admitted that receipts mark DW1/D and DW1/E were regarding repayment of his loan amount. It is, thus, manifest that the impugned sales were effected for legal necessity. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding against the plaintiffs. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is fully supported by the evidence on record and the reasons recorded by the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was totally frivolous and vexatious and so is the instant second appeal. Regular Second Appeal No. 5007 of 2009 -5- Such frivolous litigation has to be curbed and therefore, appellant should be burdened with costs. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine with costs of Rs 5,000/- to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month from today. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 24, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'