Hari Singh vs Ram Dhari and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 24, 1965, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. A usual suit for declaration was filed by the Appellant who alleged in the plaint that sale of 182 Kanals and 2 Marias of ancestral land made by Kali Ram and Pehlada his father and uncle respectively, on February 28, 1963, for a sum of Rs. 11000/- in favour of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was void and ineffectual against their reversionary rights after the death of the said Kali Ram and Pehlada. He had alleged that the sale was for no consideration and necessity. The parties went to trial on the following issues:

Is the land in suit ancestral Qua the Plaintiff and the vendors ?

Are the Plaintiff and the vendors governed by Customary Law in matters of alienation and succession ? If so, what is that custom ?

Is the sale for consideration and legal necessity or an act of good management ?

Did Defendants 5 and 6 sell land beyond their shares ? If so, what is its effect ?

The learned trial Court held on issues Nos. 1 and 4 that only 21/196th part of suit land was ancestral, issue No. 2 was held in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant, on issue No. 3 it was held that the sale was for consideration but constituted an act of good management. On these findings, the suit filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant was dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on all issues and dismissed the appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to challenge the finding arrived at by both the learned Courts below on the issue relating to the ancestral nature of the property. Consequently, it must be held that only 21/196th share of the property was ancestral. On the question of necessity, the Learned Counsel has urged that the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court is incorrect. He has submitted that the sale of ancestral land could be regarded as an act of good management if the (sic)ield realised therefrom is properly invested by the vendor in procuring some property which would then be regarded as ancestral property. According to the Learned Counsel, the permanent disposal of the property which does not result in any tangible gain to the reversionary body cannot be regarded as an act of good management.

The judgments relied upon by the learned lower appellate Court are really distinguishable. In Chet Singh and Gopal Singh v. Allah Ditta and Piran Ditta 47 PLR 1912, sale was made of equity of redemption of ancestral land which yielded little or no profit to the mortgagees and at the time of the sale it was foreseen that it would be impossible for the mortgagor or his descendants to redeem the mortgage. In Khanu v. Fateh Khan 87 PLR 1912, sale of waste land of insignificant value by a father was held to be valid when it was shown that the father was not an extrava-gent or an imprudent person.

In this case also it has been proved as a question of fact that two vendors were not profligate spendthrift. They must, therefore, be regarded as men of ordinary prudence. I am however, of the view that the character of the vendors is only relevant for the purpose of seeing whether any representation given in the sale deed could have been acted upon by the vendees or not, for, in a string of authorities it has been held that where a vendor is a prudent man and he represents that he needs the money for a necessary purpose the vendee is absolved of making any further enquiry into the question of necessity. The sale made by vendors in such cases have been upheld. In the instant case, however, a copy of the sale deed produced before me by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant shows that no represeutation was made by the vendors to the vendees. In this view of the matter, the character of the vendors becomes wholly irrelevant. It is admitted on behalf of the Respondents that the money realised by the vendors was not spent by them for any necessary purpose. Therefore, the sale of ancestral portion of the disputed land cannot be regarded as an act of good management.

Since the case has not been looked at from this angle, I asked the Learned Counsel for the Respondents to read the evidence whether the vendors had in fact made any representation at the time of sale that they would utilize the money realised from the sale of the ancestral property for purchasirg any land in their own village. Only Bija D. W. 3 has made a statement that the two vendors represented that they would purchase land in their own village with the money realised from the sale of this land. But this witness also admitted that security proceedings were taken against him on the one side and the Appellant on the other. The other two witnesses, namely Daya Ram D. W. 4 and Ram Dhari D.W. 5 produced by the Respondents bad not made any statement on this point Accordingly, I hold that there was no valid basis for the learned lower appellate Court to hold that the sale of 21/196th share of ancestral land made by Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 constituted an act of good management. Consequently, I allow this appeal and decree the suit of the Appellant and hold that the sale of 21/196th share of the property in dispute made by virtue of sale deed dated February 29, 1963, shall be null, void and ineffectual against the reversionary rights of the Appellant after the death of Pehlada and Kali Ram Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

In view of the insignificant success of the Appellant there is no order as to costs.