Inderjit Singh vs Janam Singh and Others

Kiran Anand Lall, J.—Mehkar Singh was the owner of the suit land. He sold it to respondents no. 1 to 4 vide registered sale-deed dated 29.5.1984, Ex.D1. The appellant who is his son was minor at that time. He filed a reversionary suit through his mother as his next friend, challenging the sale. It was pleaded that the land was ancestral in the hands of Mehkar Singh qua the appellant and he had sold it to respondents no.1 to 4, without consideration and without legal necessity. The sale was, therefore, alleged to be illegal and not binding on the rights of the appellant who constituted a joint Hindu family with Mehkar Singh. During pendency of the suit, the appellant attained majority, and Mehkar Singh also died. The plaint was, therefore, amended, and legal heirs of Mehkar Singh were brought on record as respondents no.5 (i) to 5 (v). Besides, relief of possession was claimed, in place of that of declaration.

Respondents no.1 to 4 contested the suit, denying the claim of the appellant. According to them, they had paid a sum of Rs. 58,000/- to Mehkar Singh, as the sale consideration. They had satisfied themselves that Mehkar Singh had the legal necessity to sell the land. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid as earnest amount to him, on 5.7.1983, vide an agreement and a receipt duly executed by him. The land was under mortgage with them, for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and also with Jagdish Pal son of Sarup Singh, for Rs. 12,000/-. The mortgage amount was adjusted towards the sale price and the balance sale consideration was paid before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Mehkar Singh owed a sum of Rs. 5000/- to one Khushal Singh also, as loan. Besides, he spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on the marriage of his daughter, Sharda, and an equal amount, on the marriage of his son, Hans RaJ.

After trial, the trial court found that the land was ancestral in the hands of Mehkar Singh, qua the appellant. It also further found that the sale was effected for legal necessity and consideration, and was, as such, valid. It further found that the land was under mortgage for a total sum of Rs. 33,000/-. An Accountant of the Primary Land Development Bank, Ballabgarh, DW5, Harish Chand, proved the statements of account, Ex.DW5/1 and Ex.DW5/2, pertaining to a loan amount of Rs. 10,000/- taken by Mehkar Singh, from the bank. DW6 Satbir Singh, clerk in the Corporation Society, Dayalpur, proved that Mehkar Singh owed a sum of Rs. 1960/- to the Corporation Society, also.

In view of the above, the trial court rightly observed that vendees were only to prove that the vendor had the legal necessity to sell the land, and not the actual application of sale consideration towards that legal necessity, because application of money is never in the hands of a vendee. Holding that the impugned sale was effected by Mehkar Singh for legal necessity and also for consideration, the trial court dismissed the suit. The findings of fact regarding legal necessity for effecting the sale and the receipt of the amount of sale consideration by Mehkar Singh from respondents no.1 to 4, were confirmed by the first appellate court, also. In the regular second appeal in hand, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of these findings of fact, recorded by the courts below on the basis of the evidence, appearing on record.

Since, the learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any substantial question of law arising in this appeal for determination, the appeal shall stand dismissed.