A grandson has locus standi to challenge the sale of ancestral property by his grandfather, even during the lifetime of his father, as he is a coparcener entitled to a share in the property by reason of his birth.

D. Raju, C.J.—The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 19 of 1984 on the file of the learned Sub- Judge 1st Class, Hamirpur who lost before both the courts below and against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District, Hamirpur dated 15.10.1993 in C.A. No. 108 of 1987 whereunder the court below had chosen to confirm the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Judge dismissing the suit filed for a declaration that the sale dated 29.1.1976 and the consequent sanction of mutation on the basis of the said sale deed is bad in law. One Sohan Singh son of Hira son of Jawahar was indisputably the owner of the property in question and there is no controversy that the property in his hand was ancestral property. He sold the land measuring six Kanals more fully described in the plaint to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- under the sale deed dated 29.1.1976. His grandson, through the son of Sohan Singh, by name Kashmir Singh filed a suit on 9.2.1984 challenging the alienation on the ground that the ancestral property of a Hindu Rajput is governed by caste custom in the matter of alienation and could not have been alienated and that at any rate the alienation was not for a legal necessity and without the consent of the reversioners, also. The defendant not only questioned the character of the property but justified the sale to be for legal necessity. On the above claims and counter claims the suit came to be tried and by a judgment and decree dated 9.2.1984 the suit was held to be within time, that the plaintiff was found to have been in the womb of his mother at the time of the alleged sale, that the minor plaintiff who is one of the reversioners is competent to file a suit inspite of the fact that his father, the nearest reversioner, is alive and that being an ancestral property he has a cause of action to institute a suit. So far as the question of legal necessity is concerned, binding on the family to justify the sale, the learned trial Judge under issue No. 7 dealt with the question in paras 20 and 21 elaborately adverting to the oral and documentary evidence, not only the recital contained in the document relating to the consideration and the purpose for which the amount was required but also the oral evidence in justification thereof and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was sufficient representation and that it was proved that the purpose, object and the reason for the sale was for reasons of binding legal necessity and, therefore, the suit had to fail. The learned trial Judge also observed that it is not necessary for the purchaser to prove that the money was in fact utilised for the necessary legal purpose since the only duty cast on the purchaser was to enquire about the legal necessity. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed C.A. No. 108 of 1987. The learned first appellate Judge also had gone into the question of locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit challenging the alienation by the grand-father when his own father, the nearest reversioner, was alive in addition to taking up for consideration the question as to whether the sale was for valid consideration and binding legal necessity. The learned first appellate Judge without proper consideration of the question relating to the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, on a cursory reference to the Punjab customary law and the alleged absence of proper pleadings to come within the exception, came to the conclusion that when the nearest reversioner, father of the plaintiff has not filed a similar suit within the limitation, he shall be deemed to have consented to the alienation and that for the said reason as also for the reason that no proper averments have been made to bring the case within the exception provided in the Punjab Customary Law, the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. Notwithstanding the above finding, the learned first appellate Judge also went into the question of le