1. The present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs having lost before the learned trial court in the present suit filed for cancellation of sale deed executed by the plaintiff's father Maanmal in favour of defendant no.1 Deep Chand for the consideration of Rs.20,000/-, which was borrowed by Maanmal purportedly for the joint family business under the name & style of M/s Bagrecha Brothers and/or M/s Navneet Chand Ashok Kumar.

2. The plaintiffs Kanti Lal @ Navneet Chand and Ashok Kumar are sons of seller Maanmal and Smt. Laxmi Bai @ Vijay Laxmi – plaintiff no.3 is one of the daughters of Maanmal, who is wife of defendant No.1 Deep Chand, whereas, defendant No.1 and 2 – Deep Chand and Dhirajmal are purchasers of the suit property, a residential house situated at Bali and defendant No.3, Smt. Shobha Kumari is another daughter of Maanmal, defendant no.4 Roopchand is elder brother of Maanmal and defendant No.5 – Vijay Chand s/o Chunnilal is another close relative being brother of maternal grand father of plaintiff No.1, Kanti Lal.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff before the learned trial court is that the residential house in question was an ancestral property and a Trust was created for the benefit of the plaintiff No.1 & 2, Kanti Lal and Ashok Kumar by their father Maanmal in the year 1957 and three trustees, his elder brother Roop Chand and defendant No.5 – Vijay Chand & one Shiv Lal were made trustees vide Trust Deed dated 23/12/1957 and in view of the said Trust Deed, the father of the plaintiffs, Maanmal could not sell the said residential house on 21/9/1971 in favour of son-in-law Deep Chand and his brother Dhirajmal, defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

4. The learned trial court, however, held that the said Trust could not be created as the same was in violation of Section 8 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 as the property being ancestral was not transferable in favour of the beneficiaries sons by the father Maanmal alone and, therefore, as a Karta of the family, said Maanmal could transfer the residential house for consideration in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 by the registered sale deed and, therefore, the cancellation of the sale deed was refused and the suit came to be dismissed by the learned trial court on 15/5/1986. the relevant findings of the learned trial court in this regard are quoted below for ready reference:-

^^fook|d la[;k 1 %& vk;k oknxzLr edku esa 2009 ds x`gLFk O;oLFkk ds Ik’pkr~ oknh dkafryky dk 1@3 fgLlk] oknh v’kksddqekj dks 1@3 fgLLkk o e`r ekuey dk 1@3 fgLLkk o e`r ekuey dk 1@3 ekydh FkhA &oknh

;g ekuk gqvk rF; gS fd i{kdkjku ij fgUnq ferkDlj dkuwu ykxw gksrk gSA bl lac/k esa 72 vkjŒ,yŒMCY;wŒ 213 rFkk 80 jktŒ 73 dk voyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA oknhx.k ds vuqlkj dkfryky] v’kksddqekj rFkk ekuey fgUnq dks&iksj’kuj FksA vr% iwoZtks ds la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifŸk ij ;s rhuksa 1@3] 1@3 Hkkx ij Lokeh FksA ekuey rFkk mlds HkkbZ ds e/; ikfjokfjd O;OkLFkk gksuk nksuksa i{kdkjksa esa Lohdkj gqvk gSA bl ckjs esa dksbZ fookn ugh mBk;k x;k gSA ,ŒvkbZŒvkjŒ 55 lqizhe dksVZ 481 ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds laca/k es oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk esa ;g edku ekuey ds fgLlsa es vkuk nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls Lohdkj fd;k gqvk gS rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gqvk gS fd ;g edku iwoZtksa dh LkEifŸk FkhA dkafryky] v’kksddqekj rFkk ekuey dks dks&ikj’kuZj gksuk Hkh ekuk gqvk rF; gSA Ekkuey dh e`R;q gksus ls iwoZ ekuey o mlds iq=ks esa dksbZ caVokjk gqvk gks ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA xokg oknh dkafryky us lu~ 71 esa vyx jguk ‘kq: djuk vo’; crk;k gS ij tk;nkn dk caVOkkjk gksuk ugha crk;k gSA mlds vyx jgus ek= ls ;ag ugh ekuk tk ldrk fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; caVokjk gks x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa 73 vkjŒ,yŒM+CY;wŒ 737 dk voyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA caVokjksa ds fy;s i{kdkjksa dk bjknk ?kksf”kr gksuk vfrvko’;d gksrk gSA oknhx.k dh vksj ls la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifŸk dk caVokjk gksuk dgk Hkh x;k gSA 1971 lqizhe dksVZ 1962] 1996 ds vuqlkj la;qDr ifjokj dk tkjh jguk ekuk tk;sxkA bl laca/k esa 59 vkjŒ,yŒMCY;wŒ 405 dk Hkh voyksd