The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of customary law and Hindu Law provisions in determining joint possession and property rights, particularly in the context of partition and coparcenary property.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1 This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1984, passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, for joint possession, was decreed.

2 Minor plaintiff/respondent filed a suit, claiming that he was the adopted son of Chaju, defendant No. 1 and was entitled to succeed to the property of his adopted father. The case of the plaintiff was, that his adopted father Chaju Ram constituted a joint Hindu family with him, the property in the hands of Chaju Ram, defendant No. 1 his adopted father, was ancestral, therefore, he had no right to alienate it except for legal necessity. Pleaded case of the plaintiff was, that defendant No. 1 was drunkard, gambler and spendthrift, so he was requested not to sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate the property in dispute except for consideration and legal necessity. It may be noticed here that the suit for injunction as originally framed was not competent.

3 In the first instance the suit for injunction was filed. However, during the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1, sold the property in dispute to defendants No. 2 and 3. The suit was accordingly amended, seeking joint possession by challenging the sale made by defendant No. 1. Sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 on 31.8.1979 and was registered on 4.8.1979. The sale was said to be without consideration and legal necessity. It was also claimed that the sale was a sham transaction, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff/respondent to succeed to the property. It was also pleaded case of the plaintiff, that Chajju Ram had earlier by gift transferred 65 kanals 15 marlas of agricultural land out of total disputed land, but the civil suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the gift deed in favour of Gurcharan Singh was decreed on 31.1.1979. It was held in the suit that the gift deed of land measuring 65 kanals 15 marlas by Chaju Ram, in favour of Gurcharan Singh was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff. Appeal filed by Gurcharan Singh was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 25.5.1981. It was also pleaded that during the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. 1 transferred the land by way of impugned sale.

4 Ishar and Dalip Singh, defendants No. 2 and 3 had moved an application, in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani for being impleaded as party in the appeal on the ground that the property stood transferred in their favour. The application was allowed and they were allowed, to be impleaded as party. Appeal filed by Gurcharan Singh was dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge did not decide the question, as to whether the sale in favour of defendant-appellants was valid or not and was left for the decision of the civil court, as the plaintiff/respondent had already filed a suit for injunction against defendant No. 1, which was subsequently amended as referred to above. It was pleaded that the impugned sale was the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation and was executed without legal necessity and consideration.

5 Suit was contested by the defendants.

Defendant No. 1, filed written statement separately and he denied, that the disputed land was ancestral in his hands qua the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff was his adopted son. Sale was said to be for consideration and legal necessity. Defence was also taken that the plaintiff/respondent had no locus standi to file the suit, nor the suit was maintainable. Other preliminary objections were also pleaded. Plea of fraud and misrepresentation was denied. He admitted having received the sale consideration, by claiming the suit property to be self-acquired property.

Defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. the appellants filed a separate written statement by taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit. That Smt.Chandro had no authority to file the suit on behalf of the minor. It was pleaded, that the sale in favour of defendant/appellants was f