Kuldip Singh , Judge The plaintiff has come in second appeal against the judgment, decree dated 18.7.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1999 reversing judgment, decree dated 29.7.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie in Civil Suit No. 69 of 1994.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration that sale deed dated 19.6.1993 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and inoperative on the rights of the appellant with consequential relief of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondent No.1 was defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 was defendant No.1 in the suit.

3. The further case of the appellant is that he constituted a co-parcenary and joint Hindu family with respondent No. 2 and they are coparceners. The pedigree table relied by the appellant in the plaint is as follows: Baba Surinder Singh Avinder Singh (pre-deceased) Sardool Singh Bedi Manmohan Singh Bedi (Defendant No.1) A.S. Bedi Harinder Singh Bedi Gurdeep Singh Bedi Raj (Widow) Gajinder Singh (Son)Amninder

Singh (Plaintiff)

4. It is the case of the appellant that Sajjad Villa more particularly described in the plaint was recorded in the ownership of Baba Surinder Singh Karta of family and common ancestor of appellant and respondent No.2. Baba Surinder Singh died on 19.1.1988 and after his death the suit property was inherited by joint Hindu family of appellant and respondent No.2 and came in the hands of respondent No.2 being Karta of the joint Hindu family of the appellant and respondent No.2. They are coparceners and the suit property is coparcenary property of appellant and respondent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2 had wasteful nature. The respondent No.2 sold the suit property on 19.6.1993 without any legal necessity of the family at throw-away price. The sale consideration was wasted and was not spent on the joint Hindu family. The transfer of the suit property was a great loss to the Hindu Undivided Family. The appellant requested the respondents not to waste the property by transfer or sale but they refused to accede to the request of the appellant. On 2.8.1993 the appellant requested respondent No.1 to return the possession and cancel the transfer deed but without any positive result hence the suit was filed for declaration, possession and injunction as noticed above.

6. The suit was contested by respondent No.2 by filing written statement. He admitted the pedigree table, description of the property. He denied that suit property was sold without legal necessity. He has also denied that sale consideration was not spent on the joint Hindu family. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The respondent No.1 also contested the suit by filing written statement and took preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, appellant all the time had been assisting his father for selling the property to respondent No.1, he was even present alongwith his mother at the time of registration of the sale deed before Sub Registrar and, therefore, on account of his conduct he is debarred from assailing the sale, the suit has been filed by appellant in collusion with respondent No.2. On merits, it has been denied that appellant and respondent No.2 constitute co-parcenary and they are members of the joint Hindu Family. The respondent No.2 was the sole owner of Sajjad Villa after the death of late Baba Surinder Singh. The property was inherited by respondent No.2 not as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. It has been denied that the property was not sold for legal necessity or sale consideration was not utilized for the benefit of the family.

8. The respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for sale of the property on 19.6.1991, thereafter respondent No.1 obtained permission from Government of Himachal Pradesh to purchase the building and after receiving