IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment based on justified reasoning and conclusion cannot be interfered with.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1734 of 1968 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents (defendants) and dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff.

2. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state the facts in detail infra.

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff whereas the respondents are the legal representatives of the original defendants, who were brought on record during the pendency of this litigation consequent upon the death of both plaintiff and the defendants.

4. The dispute in this appeal is between the son, father and the purchasers of the suit land from father. It relates to a land measuring around 164 Kanals 1 Marla entered in rectangle No.46 Killa Nos. 8/1, 19/2, 21/2, 22/2, 23, 24 and rectangle No.52, Killa Nos. 1/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12/1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25 entered in Khata No.6/9 Jamabandi 1957-58 at present entered in Khata No.2/2 Jamabandi 1962-63 situated in Village Bhamian Kalan, Tehsil Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as "suit land").

5. One Pritam Singh (defendant No.1) was the owner of the suit land. He sold the suit land on 25.04.1960 by registered sale deed to Tara Singh (defendant No.2) and Ajit Singh (defendant No.3) for Rs.19,500/-. Both vendees namely, Tara Singh and Ajit Singh were placed in possession of the suit land.

6. On 27.11.1964, Kehar Singh s/o Pritam Singh filed a civil suit (Case No. 429/325 of 1964) against Tara Singh and Ajit Singh in the Court of Sub-Judge 2nd class, Ludhiana.

7. The suit was founded inter alia on the allegations that the suit land was and continues to be an ancestral property of the family of which the plaintiff is one of its members along with his father-Pritam Singh, that the plaintiff's family is governed by the custom, which applies to sale of family property inter se family members, that the plaintiff has a share in the suit land along with his father-Pritam Singh as one of the coparceners, that Pritam Singh had no right to sell the suit land without obtaining the plaintiff's consent, which he never gave to his father for sale of the suit land, that there was no legal necessity of the family which could permit Pritam Singh to sell the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, that the suit land and the rights of the parties to the suit are governed by the provisions of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

8. The plaintiff prayed for a relief of declaration on the aforementioned allegations that first, the sale made by his father-Pritam Singh in favour of Tara Singh and Ajit Singh vide sale deed dated 25.04.1960 in relation to the suit land be declared as not binding on the plaintiff; Second, the sale in question is void and does not convey any right, title and interest in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

9. The defendants contested the suit. According to them, the suit land was not ancestral one; that the parties were not governed by any custom; that the sale deed in question was executed for consideration and for legal necessity of the family; that the sale was made for discharge of family debts and for improving the farming; that the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for consideration.

10. The Trial Court framed issues. Parties adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated 17.12.1966, the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit. It was held that the suit land was an ancestral property and there was no legal necessity to sell the suit land.

11. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 felt aggrieved and filed first appeal (C.A. No.31 of 1967) before the first Appellate Court. By judgment/decree dated 11.06.1968, the first Appellate Court partly allowed the de