The right of co-parceners to challenge alienation of ancestral property and the consequences of a lease deed not being an act of good management under Hindu law.

R.L. Anand, J. - This is defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1999 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) who decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the present defendant-appellant with costs and the declaration was granted in favour of the plaintiff that lease deed dated 25.6.1987 qua suit land, is illegal, void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the same was set aside. Consequential relief was also given in favour of the plaintiffs by way of passing a decree of possession of the suit land.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. A lease deed dated 25.6.1987 was executed by Shri Rajpal Singh in favour of Shri Duli Chand for a period of 99 years. The challenge was given by the plaintiffs to this lease deed on the plea that the property measuring 8 kanals in the hands of Shri Raj Pal Singh was ancestral/co-parcenary and Shri Rajpal Singh was a man of questionable habits and he had no legal necessity to transfer the property by way of lease.

3. The defendant No. 1 had taken advantage of the weakness of defendant No. 2 and got the lease deed executed on 25.6.1987 for a period of 99 years. This document of lease is not an act of good management on the part of defendant No. 2 nor it was so executed for the benefit of the family. Only a nominal amount of Rs. 200/- per annum has been fixed as lease money by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 and this act on the part of defendant No. 2 speaks volumes of the fact that the lease deed was not executed as an act of good management. The plaintiffs further alleged that Shri Rajinder Pal Singh was a man of immoral character and the execution of lease deed does not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff.

4. The contest was given to the suit by the present defendant-appellant on the plea that the property is not ancestral and that there was an act of good management on the part of defendant No. 2 when he executed the lease deed.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the impugned lease deed dated 25.6.1987 is illegal, void and hence not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the suit property ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

8. Relief.

An additional issue was also framed as issue No. 2-A, which is as under :-

"2-A. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 constitute Joint Hindu Family and the suit property is their ancestral joint undivided Hindu family coparcenary property ? OPP"

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.1999 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in the terms as stated above.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant- appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, who for the valid reasons given in paras No. 14 to 28 of its judgment dismissed the appeal. Paras No. 14 to 28 of the judgment of the first appellate Court are reproduced as under :-

"14. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding of the court below on issue No. 2-A by contending that there was no cogent evidence on record on the basis of which it could be held that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of respondent No. 3 Raj Pal Singh as karta. It was candidly conceded that while there was presumption of family of the father and sons among the Hindus being joint but there was no presumption that a Joint Hindu Family had a