MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.1982 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Ara, Bhojpur in Title Suit No.91 of 1970/40 of 1982 whereby the court below dismissed the plaintiff-appellant’s suit for setting aside the sale deed executed by his father.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for setting aside the sale made by his father, the original defendant No.1-respondent No.13 herein in the appeal(He died during the pendency of the appeal and his name has been expunged). According to the plaintiff, his father sold Schedule C property hereinafter referred to as the “suit property” in favour of defendant Nos.10 and 11 by registered sale deed dated 20.05.1968. According to the plaintiff, the properties described in Schedule A were allotted in the share of the plaintiff’s father in partition between his co-sharer and Schedule B were allotted to defendant Nos.2 to 6. The mother died in the year 1955 and thereafter his father started “Awaragardi” and on the pressure, he executed a Bazidaba in favour of the plaintiff in 1960. Yadast Bazidaba was executed in favour of plaintiff on 17.04.1963, so, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of all the family property.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that on the instigation of the enemies, the father, defendant No.1 executed the sale deed regarding Schedule C property in favour of defendant Nos.10 and 11. The Rehan deed and the sale deed are fraudulent, collusive, without legal necessity and without consideration. Even if any consideration was paid to the plaintiff’s father, it was for immoral purposes. The further case is that his father was a drunkard and was involved with prostitution and for that purpose, he sold the property. The consideration is inadequate.

4. The defendant Nos.10 and 11 filed written statement and contested the suit. Their case is that the story of immoral character alleged by plaintiff is false. The plaintiff’s father was very prudent man and not indicted to wine and women. The sale deed and Rehan deed are genuine, legal, valid and for consideration and for legal necessity. In the written statement, they have described how and why the father of the plaintiff was in need of money and he was repeatedly keeping the lands in mortgage in favour of them for the purpose of maintenance of the family, purchasing bullock for cultivation and also for the purpose of education of the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned court below framed the following issues:—

I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

II. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?

III. Is the plaintiff a man of bad character?

IV. Is the story of relinquishment by the plaintiff father as alleged by the plaintiff correct?

V. Are the rehan deed and sale deeds executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of defendant No.10 and 11 fraudulent, collusive and without consideration?

VI. Has the property in dispute been sold for low valuation?

VII. To what relief or reliefs if any is the plaintiff entitled?

6. After trial, the learned court below recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deeds and Rehan deeds executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of defendant Nos.10 and 11 were fraudulent, collusive and without consideration and without legal necessity. The court below also recorded finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that his father was indicted of immoral habit or character and accordingly, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the father was only a coparcener with the plaintiff and, therefore, he could not have sold Schedule C property without the consent of the plaintiff and moreover, any sale made by the coparcener of undivided share is a void sale. Further, the father could not have sold the property without there being any legal necessity particularly when he was of immora

Click Here to Read the rest of this document