Property conveyed must stem from legal necessity; familial ties do not justify transfers absent proven legal grounds.

1. Heard.

2. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs under S.100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1992 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rajnandgaon (Link Court at Khairagarh) in Civil Appeal No. 13 - A / 1987 which in turn arose out of judgment and decree dated 16-12-1986 passed by Civil Judge, Class - I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No. 97 - A / 1984.

3. By impugned judgment / decree, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment / decree passed by the trial Court, which had decreed plaintiff's suit for declaration and partition in relation to suit property (agricultural land and residential house) and while partly allowing the appeal set aside that part of the judgment / decree of the trial Court which related to agricultural lands and in consequence dismissed plaintiff's suit but upheld part of the judgment / decree relating to residential house. In this way, the plaintiff's suit was held decreed in part insofar as it related to residential house whereas it was dismissed insofar as it related to agricultural lands. In this appeal, I am concerned with the decree of dismissal of plaintiffs suit insofar as it relates to agricultural lands.

4. So the question arise for consideration in this appeal is whether lower appellate Court was justified in partly modifying the judgment / decree passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.

5. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the suit, it is necessary to state the facts as pleaded by the parties and how they were dealt with by the two Courts below.

6. The dispute in this appeal centres around family members, original ancestor being one Sadwa. It is between his two granddaughters and two great granddaughters on the one side as plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and another granddaughter and her husband as defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

7. The family tree of Sadwa would be useful to appreciate the issue.
(Vernacular matter omitted - Ed.)

8. The suit property consists of agricultural land admeasuring 18.75 acres situated at village Boldakala, district Rajnandgaon and a residential house. It belonged to Sadwa. He died somewhere in 1950. He had a son namely Parsadi who predeceased him in 1945. Parsadi had a wife Rupabai. This couple had four daughters, namely Dukhadayi (plaintiff No. 1) Sonia (plaintiff No. 2), Sonmat (mother of Sethin and Methin - Plaintiffs 3 & 4) and Matibai (defendant No. 1). Remlal (defendant No.2) is the husband of Matibai.

9. On the death of Sadwa, name of Rupabai, i.e. widow of his predeceased son Parsadi was recorded in the agricultural lands. Rupabai then sold the suit properties (agricultural lands and residential house) to her son - in - law Ramlal (defendant No.2) by executing sale deed on 23-6-55 (Ex - D / 4). Rupabai died in the year 1982.

10. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 1982, out of which this appeal arises against the defendants claiming a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the suit properties to the extent of 3/4th share in it and hence their 3/4th share be partitioned between the parties (amongst the four sisters). The plaintiffs also claimed a declaration that the sale deed executed by Rupabai - their mother in favour of her son - in - law (defendant No. 2) (Ex - D / 4) is bad in law being void and not binding on them inter alia for the reasons that firstly their mother had no right to sell the suit properties to any one because she had acquired only limited interest in the suit properties after the death of their grand father (Sadwa): secondly, and assuming that the mother could sell her limited share in the suit properties yet in the absence of any legal necessity for sale of such properties, the sale in question