Self-acquired property of a deceased does not remain joint family property post-death under Hindu Succession Act provisions.

1. Second Appeal No. 82 of 1992 filed by the plaintiff - Vedram and Second Appeal No. 403 of 1992 filed by the defendant / purchaser - Lekhram arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 29 - A / 1990 are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The plaintiff - Vedram filed a civil suit No. 25 - A / 1975 before the Civil Judge, Class - 2, Sakti, for declaration that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 are members of joint Hindu family and are co - owners of the disputed land and also that sale deed dated 28-2-1975 executed by his father, defendant - Hukum Singh, in favour of defendant - Lekhram, is null and void. A permanent injunction was also prayed for by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any one else.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that one Banmali was the owner of the disputed lands and in his life time, there was no partition but as per family arrangement, the plaintiff was looking after the lands in Mouza Amliphali, Binautha, Kuraina and Pujripali and was in its possession. Defendant - Tikaram was looking after the lands situated in Mouza Salhe and Sursi and was in its possession. Defendant - Hukum Singh was looking after the lands in Mouza Khaira and was in its possession. His rights accrue to him not on the death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth, and therefore, the whole property was ancestral. It was also alleged that by consent of the parties, names of the parties were separately entered in the small khata of revenue records.

4. It was further case of the plaintiff that Hukum Singh - defendant, by a registered sale deed dated 28-2-1975 sold the lands mentioned in Schedule - B filed along with the plaint, for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of Lekhram (appellant in S. A. No. 403 of 1992), without any legal necessity of alienating the suit lands and that the sale deed was void and was without consideration.

5. The defendants vehemently opposed the relief claimed by the plaintiff and submitted their written statement stating therein that Banmali, during his lifetime, affected partial partition of the suit land on 21-12-1957 and thereafter also divided the remaining lands remained in his name on 24-8-1969 between his two sons - Tikaram and Hukum Singh and since then both of them were in possession of their respective lands. After partition, both the brothers did not remain as members of joint Hindu family. It was further averred that said Banmali never had any right or title over the lands mentioned in Schedule - A to the written statement. The lands given to Tikaram are shown in Schedule - B and the lands given to Hukum Singh are shown in Schedule - C to the written statement.

6. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that Banmali, during his lifetime, had partitioned the lands between Tikaram and Hukum Singh. It was also held that Hukum Singh had alienated the lands to Lekhram for legal necessity.

7. The plaintiff - Vedram filed first appeal No. 29 - A / 1990. The learned first appellate Court partly allowed and decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree declaring the sale deed dated 28-2-1975 as void.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree impugned, the plaintiff as well as defendant - Lekhram have filed instant second appeals.

9. This Court admitted the Second Appeal No. 82/1992 on the following substantial question of law:
"Was the learned lower appellate Court bound to