AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 198 wordsS.P. Goyal, J.—Respondent No. 3 has since died and actual date notice was issued to the remaining respondents but nobody is present on their behalf. Ex-parte proceedings are, therefore, taken against them.
This appeal has arisen out of the suit filed by respondent No. 1 for a declaration that the sale made of agricultural land measuring 67 Kanals 10 Marlas by their father was ineffective and void as there was no legal necessity to do so nor was it made for the benefit of the estate. It is not necessary to notice detailed pleadings of the parties and the finding recorded by the Courts below because the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act has since been amended by Act No. 12 of 1973 and the right to challenge the alienation of ancestral property by the reversioners has been taken away. A Division Bench of this Court in Charan Singh v. Gehil Singh (1974) 76 P.L.R. 125, has held that the amendment was applicable even to the second appeals pending in the High Court. So this suit is no more competent and has to be dismissed.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the suit dismissed. No costs.