R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 26.11. 2009
R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009
Randhir
......Appellant
Versus
Manohar and another
.......Respondents
R.S.A.No. 2027 of 2009 (O&M)
Virender
......Appellant
Versus
Manohar and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate,
for the appellant (s).
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment RSA Nos. 2020 and 2027 of 2009 will
be disposed of as the point in issue in both the cases is similar.
Randhir Singh had filed a suit for declaration with
consequential relief of possession claiming that the said property had
R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 2
been inherited by his father Indraj and hence, the same could not be
sold by him without legal necessity. Manohar, on the other hand,
had filed a suit for permanent injunction that Indraj, Surender,
Virender, Randhir and Narender be restrained from interfering in his
peaceful possession as he had purchased the suit land from Indraj.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned
Additional District Judge, in the appeal filed by Randhir read as
under:-
“2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for
declaration with consequential relief of possession
against the defendants, inter-alia on the ground that suit
land measuring 25 kanals 8 marlas, as detailed in para
No.1 of the plaint, situated within the area of Village
Charkhi Tehsil Charkhi-Dadri, District Bhiwani was
inherited by defendant no.2 Indraj vendor, the father of
the plaintiff, from his adoptive father Shri Ram. The
plaintiff has shown the relationship in the pedigree table
described in para no.1 of the trial court judgment. It is
further alleged that the suit property was the coparcenary
property and joint Hindu family property of him and
defendant No.2 and his other brothers. The defendant
no.2 has sold the suit land without any legal necessity
because he was drunkard and the sale deed No.2614
dated 22.3.1984 is without consideration and it is an act
R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 3of fraud. Therefore, the same is not binding on the rights
of the plaintiff and his brothers. Hence, this suit.
3. On notice of the suit, defendants appeared in the
Court. In his written statement, defendant no.1 has
alleged the preliminary objections qua maintainability of
the suit; cause of action; bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties etc. On merits, it is alleged that the suit property
being the coparcenary property is vehemently denied. It
is pleaded that the suit land was sold for a consideration
of Rs.30,000/- and, therefore, the defendant no.1 became
the owner in possession of the suit property vide
aforesaid sale deed. Vendor defendant no.2 was the
absolute owner of the said land, therefore, he had every
right to sell the same. It is pleaded that the defendant
no.2, in fact, was under heavy debt because in the year
1977, he had taken loan of Rs.24,000/- by way of
mortgaging his land from P.A.R.D.B. Dadri, to run his
dairy business. The said loan was obtained from the
welfare of the family. So, to pay off the said loan,
defendant No.2 contacted with the answering defendant
to sell his land and at the time of agreement to sell his
land, he received Rs.2000/- as earnest money and
remaining amount of Rs.28,000/- was to be paid on
31.3.1984. But the sale deed was executed by the
R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 4defendant No.2 on 22.3.1984 after receiving Rs.28,000/-
as cash and on the same date, Indraj vendor deposited
Rs.29,595/- in cash in his loan account and settled the
same. Prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial court:
1. Whether Indraj defendant and his sons form a joint
H.U.F. ?OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the land in dispute is a
joint HUF property?OPP.
3. Whether the defendant no.1 is the bona fide purchaser
for valuable consideration?OPD.
4. Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good
management of defendant No.2?OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the
present suit?OPD.
6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its
present form?OPD
7. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?OPD.
8. Whether the present suit is bad for non-compliance
of Order 7(1)J?OPD.
9. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous?OPD. R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 5 10. Relief."Vide order dated 23.7.2003, the onus of issue No.2 was
shifted upon the plaintiff and the issue No.4 was re-framed, which
reads as under:-
“4. Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good
management on the part of defendant No.2 as he had
legal necessity to sell the suit land in favour of defendant
No.1? OPD
The suit filed by Randhir Singh was dismissed by both the
Courts below, whereas, the suit filed by Manohar was decreed by
both the Courts below
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of
the opinion that these appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve to
be dismissed.
The Courts below have held that the suit property was
ancestral property in the hands of Indraj.
The question that requires consideration in these appeals
is as to whether the land owned by Indraj had been sold for legal
necessity. Both the Courts below, after perusing the agreement to
sell Ex.D-1 and sale deed dated 22.3.1984 EX.D-2, held that it was
clearly established that loan had been taken by Indraj from the bank.
As per Ex.DW2-A, Rs. 29,595/- had been deposited by Indraj with
the bank on 22.3.1984. Ex.DW-2/B was the attested copy of the
ledger. The said loan had been taken by Indraj in the year 1977-78
R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 6
for dairy purposes. Since Indraj was a chronic defaulter, he sold the
land in dispute to clear the outstanding loan. In these circumstances,
the Courts below held that it could not be said that Indraj had sold
the suit property without any legal necessity. The Courts further held
that there was nothing to establish on record that Indraj was a liquor
addict or that no consideration had passed between the parties at the
time of execution of the sale deed by Indraj in favour of Manohar. In
these circumstances, the suit filed by Randhir for declaration and
possession was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Since
Manohar had become owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale
deed executed by Indraj in his favour, the decree for permanent
injunction was rightly passed restraining Indraj, Surender, Virender,
Randhir and Narender from interfering in the peaceful possession of
Manohar.
No substantial question of law arises in these regular
second appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
November 26, 2009
anita