Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
Gopal Krishan and others - Appellants
Versus
Parkash Chand(deceased) through LRs and others – Respondents
RSA No. 865 of 1998(O&M)
RSA No. 871, 872 of 1998
Decided on : 28-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate and Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the property in the hands of Ramesh Chand as coparcenary property, and the validation of sale deeds based on legal necessity and consideration.
Headnote:
Joint Possession - Hindu Coparcenary Property - Sections 221, 214 of Mulla Principle of Hindu Law - The property in the hands of Ramesh Chand is held to be coparcenary property, and he had the right to dispose of the property. The sale deeds were held to be the sale deeds executed for legal necessity and for consideration. However, two sale deeds were held to be not valid due to lack of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for joint possession of coparcenary property and challenged certain sale deeds as null and void. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower Appellate Court allowed all the appeals filed by the defendants, dismissing the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the property in the hands of Ramesh Chand was coparcenary property and he had the right to dispose of it. The sale deeds were held to be executed for legal necessity and consideration. However, two sale deeds were held to be not valid due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the property in the hands of Ramesh Chand, the validity of the sale deeds, and the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The property in the hands of Ramesh Chand was held to be coparcenary property, and the sale deeds were found to be executed for legal necessity and consideration. Lack of evidence led to the invalidation of two sale deeds. The plaintiffs were held to have locus standi to file the suit.
Final Decision: RSA No. 865 of 1998 was dismissed, RSA No. 872 of 1998 was allowed, and RSA No. 871 of 1998 was also allowed.
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
1. This Order shall dispose of three regular second appeals i.e. RSA Nos. 865, 871 & 872 of 1998 filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby while reversing the findings and judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court, the lower Appellate Court has ordered the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
2. For convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants as they were described in the original suit.
3. The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for joint possession in the suit property; described in the plaints situated at Barnala and also challenged the sale deed dated 18.10.1979 registered on 19.10.1979 in favour of defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/-, sale deed dated 12.05.1980 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/-; sale deed dated 27.03.1981 and another sale deed dated 09.06.1981 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 5 for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/- as null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had claimed in the suit that the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No. 6 Ramesh Chand son of Raja Ram and they belong to Khatri caste and as such are governed by Hindu Law. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 constituted a joint hindu family. The suit property is coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6. Defendant No. 6 is a profligate and dissolute type of person. Therefore, he alienated the suit property without legal necessity through the impugned sale deeds. Since the suit property happens to be the ancestral/coparcenary property, therefore, defendant No. 6 had no right to alienate the same. Hence the sale deeds are bad in law. Still further the plaintiffs claimed that no consideration ever passed to defendant No. 6 from the alleged vendees of the sale deeds. Now on the basis of the sale deeds defendants No. 1 to 5; the vendees are threatening to raise construction over the suit property and to change the nature thereof. Hence a suit for declaration of the sale deed as is void and for joint possession of the suit property was filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for permanent injunction; restraining defendants No. 1 to 5 from raising any construction over the suit property.
4. On being put to notice defendant No. 1 Parkash Chand filed a separate written statement whereby he contested the claim of the plaintiffs. It was averred in the written statement of defendant No. 1 that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. The routine preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. On merits it was averred by defendant No. 1 that the suit property is not the coparcenary property. Rather it was self-acquired property of Ramesh Chand, defendant No. 6. Since defendant No. 6 has sold the said property to the defendants for a consideration therefore sale deeds are valid. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 6 is neither dissolute type of person nor he ever indulged in gambling habits. Defendant No. 6 is a sapient type of man and a very rational person. He has imparted education to his children and has also met other domestic and necessary expenses out of the sale consideration. Defendant No. 1 averred in the written statement that defendant No. 6 obtained the suit property from his father vide roznamcha report No. 2 dated 21.11.1954 and as such the suit property is not an ancestral property. Further it was pleaded that he has made improvement in the suit property.
Defendant Nos. 2 and 7 also filed separate written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs almost on the same line as that of defendant No. 1. It was specifically claimed in the written statement that defendant No. 6 had alienated the suit property for legal necessity as he was to spend on the education of their children. It was further cla
