A sale deed executed by a member of a Joint Hindu Family in respect of ancestral property is void if it is without consideration and legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is defendants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below Whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the sale executed by their father being without consideration, illegal and thus not binding upon them, was decreed.

2. Plaintiffs challenged the sale deeds dated 17.1.1972 and 22.2.1972 executed by their father Tek Chand on the ground that the same was in respect of the ancestral/Joint Hindu Family property and being without consideration and legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate are void and illegal and so sought consequential relief of joint possession of the land sold with Tek Chand, defendant No. 4, their father. In the plaint, the plaintiffs mentioned as to how the property came in possession of their father from their grand-father and so was stated to be ancestral/Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs, and defendant No.4 their, father. As regards the sale executed by their father in favour of defendants, it was alleged that Sh. Gurdarshan Lal, defendant No. 3 was in service of defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 had implicit confidence in defendant No. 3 Gurdarshan Lal as a trusted manager and so defendant No. 4 being greatly perturbed over the pending agrarian legislation and in order to save his land from the provisions of the pending agrarian legislation ostensibly made transfers in favour of the defendants and some other relations of Gurdarshan Lal There was no need to dispose of this property at the relevant time. Even the consideration/sale price alleged to have been paid by the vendee at the time of the registration of the sale deed was, in fact, given by their father Tek Chand. Thus, on these grounds the sale deeds executed by Tek Chand were stated to be without legal necessity or an act of good management or otherwise for the benefit of the estate.

3. Defendants No.1 and 2 - vendees - resisted the suit of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds namely, (i) that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action; (ii) separate suits in respect of two separate sale deeds ought to have been instituted by the plaintiffs; (iii) proper court fee has not been paid on the suit. In addition thereto, defendants denied that plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 ever constituted Joint Hindu Family. In fact, Tek Chand defendant No, 4 is an agriculturist. His fore-fathers were also agriculturists and they followed agricultural customs of Punjab in the matter of alienation. It was also alleged, that the plaintiffs and their family have never followed Hindu Law in the matter of alienation. It was also denied that the plaintiffs and defendant No. constitute Joint Hindu Family. According to the defendants, it is long back that the Family of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 divided the property inter se and so the plaintiff and defendant No.4 ceased to constitute Joint Hindu Family. Regarding the sale deeds, it was stated that defendant No.4 sold the land to defendants No.1 and 2 for a valuable consideration which was paid partly in advance while the remaining sum was tendered before the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. As a matter of fact, after the Indo Pak War of 1971 defendant No.4 Tek Chand made up his mind to shift from Feroezepur to some far off place from the border and started selling his agricultural land vide various deeds executed by him in this regard. The sales, thus, were effected by Tek chand for legal necessity which sale otherwise are for the benefit of the estate.

4. In replication, averments made in the plaint were reiterated, whereas contents of the written statement were dinied /refuted

5. on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family? OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD.

3. Whether the present suit is not within time? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not pro