IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Udham Singh (deceased) through LRs . . . . Appellants Vs.

Balwant Singh . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 28.02.2025 Pronounced on: 03.03.2025 ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate and Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Prabhjayjot Singh Chahal, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Suit for declara%on regarding property in dispute filed by plain%ff Balwant Singh (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Sub-Judge 1^st Class, Ajnala vide judgment dated 12.08.1987. However, the ap- peal filed by the said plain%ff was accepted by the first appellate court of learned Addi%onal District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 17.09.1990, thus, decreeing the suit. Against this reversal, defendant Udham Singh (appel- lant herein) has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, par%es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Pritam Singh, the father of plain%ff Balwant Singh was recorded to be owner of the suit land measuring 14 Kanal detailed in headnote of the plaint. He executed an agreement dated 07.04.1981 in favour of defendant Udham Singh to sell the suit land to him. Based upon this agreement, Udham Singh brought a suit for specific performance, which was decreed on 29.11.1983 vide judgment Ex.D1. During the appeal filed by Pritam Singh against the said decree dated 29.11.1983 for specific performance, said Pritam Singh expired and his le- gal representa%ves including plain%ff of this case Balwant Singh were brought on record. An applica%on was moved by the said plain%ff to amend the wri:en statement so as to incorporate the plea that property in dispute was ancestral in nature and that same could not be sold by his father Pritam Singh without any legal necessity. However said applica%on was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Ul%mately, the appeal filed by Pritam Singh through his LRs was dismissed on 20.08.1985 vide judgment Ex.D2. Pursuant to the decree for specific perfor- mance passed by the Courts, impugned sale deed dated 26.12.1985 (Ex.DW2/1) was executed in favour of defendant of present case Udham Singh through process of the Court.

4.1 Plain%ff Balwant Singh (now respondent) son of Pritam then brought the present suit on 05.06.1986 challenging the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.12.1985 to be null, illegal and void. According to him, he along with his father Pritam Singh cons%tuted a joint Hindu family, of which Pritam Singh was the Karta. Suit property was ancestral in the hands of his father Pritam Singh qua him. It was alleged that said Pritam Singh was a man of wasteful habits and that there was no legal necessity to sell the suit land. As such, he prayed for se>ng aside the sale deed dated 26.12.1985.

4.2 Defendant of the suit Udham Singh i.e. the appellant herein op- posed the suit on various grounds including the fact that suit property was not ancestral in nature.

4.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par%es was taken on record. Trial Court vide judgment dated 12.08.1987 held the suit property to be ancestral in nature. It was further held by the trial Court that though deceased Pritam Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family but the sale of the suit land by him was for the benefit of the joint Hindu family. Im- pugned sale deed in favour of defendant was held to be legal and valid. Conse- quent to these findings on the material issues, the suit was dismissed on

12.08.1987.

4.4 The Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the plain%ff sought re-

port from the trial Court on two points:-

(i) Whether plain%ff and Pritam Singh cons%tuted a joint Hindu family and if so, whether Pritam Singh was the Karta thereof.

(ii) Whether impugned sale deed in favour of defendant was effected for legal necessi