17.10.2025 Balbir Sing through his ir Singh (since deceased) gh his LRs and others v. Ram Chand Chander and others
Case Details
RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 1 [155] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-746 Reserved o 746-1994 (O&M) rved on 22.07.2025 Pronounced ounced on: 17.10.2025 Balbir Sing through his ir Singh (since deceased) gh his LRs and others …Appellants versus Ram Chand Chander and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior enior Advocate with cate Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Samridhi Singh, Advocate vocate for ocate Mr. Sourabh Arora, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] [2] Defendants are in appeal. For the convenience, the part e parties hereinafter are referred to b d to by their origin original position in the civil suit i.e. uit i.e. the appellants as the defendan fendants and the resp he respondents as the plaintiffs. [3] Plaintiffs are sons of Moola so ola son of Molar. Plaintiffs filed a su ed a suit challenging enging alienation of the suit land in fa d in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 b to 5 by their father father-Ghasi Ram son of Moola, w ola, who was impleaded as defenda fendant No.6.As pe .As per the plaintiffs, sale deed dated 2 dated 26.05.1977 executed by defenda fendant No.6 in fav in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 is to 5 is illegal, null and void. The su The suit property w erty was a Joint Hindu Family prope perty which has been alienated b ated by defendant N dant No.6, their karta, without any leg any legal necessity. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 2 [4] Suit was contested by defen
Legal Reasoning
defendant Nos.1 to 5. Relationsh tionship between pl een plaintiffs and Ghasi Ram son of on of Moola was disputed and denie denied. As per the er the defendants, Ghasi Ram had t had to repay the loan and wanted anted to construct sh truct shop and house. Accordingly, de gly, defendant No.6 sold the property perty to meet his leg legal necessity. He being an absol absolute owner was entitled to aliena alienate the same. [5] Suit filed by the plaintiffs was ffs was put to trial by the Court of fir t of first instance, fr nce, framing following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs c iffs constitute a Joint Hindu Family mily’? OPP If Issue No.1 is proved oved, then whether the suit land wa d was ancestral qua the pla plaintiffs and the plaintiffs we were coparceners in the suit l uit land? OPP If issue No.2 is not prov proved, then whether the parties we s were 2. 3. governed by custom in t in the matter of alienation and wh what that custom is and to wh o what effect? OPP 4. Whether Chitro, Prem a em and Gindori had to right in the su he suit land, as alleged in para para No.4. of the plaint, if so, to wh what effect? OPP. 5. Whether the sale w e was for legal necessity an and consideration? OPD. 6. Whether the sale was in PD. s in act of good management? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs iffs have no locus standi to file th ile the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is ba is bad for non-joinder of necessa essary parties? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is false false and frivolous and the defendan ndants are entitled to special co al costs? OPD. 10. Relief.” RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 3 [6] Learned Trial Court found that in view of mutation No.47 No.479 (Exhibit PW ibit PW1/A), it stands proved that inh at inheritance of Molar was sanctione ctioned in favour o vour of his two sons and three daug t No.6- daughters, including defendant No.6 Ghasi Ram i Ram. Plaintiffs successfully prov proved their relationship with Gha Ghasi Ram. The he suit land is proved to be ancestr ancestral property. The same was he held by defenda efendant No.6 as karta of Joint Hindu Hindu Family comprised of defenda fendant No.6 and t and the plaintiffs. Issue Nos.3, 4 .3, 4 and 7 to 9 were decided as n as not pressed. W ed. While answering Issue Nos.5 & os.5 & 6, the Court of First Instanc nstance analyzed th zed the evidence on record to conclud onclude that from the recital of the sa the sale deed (Exhib (Exhibit D-1) challenged in the suit, , the compulsion of defendant No nt No.6 to sell the the land is evident. In the pleading leading, the plaintiffs claimed that the hat their father i.e. d r i.e. defendant No.6 was a spendthr endthrift person and that the sale dee le deed was withou without any legal necessity. To the c the contrary in evidence, they tried tried to prove that e that defendant No.6 was a drunkar runkard and a man of bad vices. Th The evidence le nce led by plaintiffs being beyond p yond pleadings cannot be looked int ed into. The recital recitals of the sale deed collaborate e the legal necessity of defenda fendant No.6. Thu . Thus, it stands proved that defend defendant No.6 sold the land for leg or legal necessity a ssity and for good management of th t of the affairs of the family. The su The suit was accord accordingly dismissed. [7] The unsuccessful plaintiffs pr iffs preferred an appeal and defenda fendant Nos.1 to 5 1 to 5 also filed cross-objections aga ns against the findings recorded by th by the Trial Court Court on Issue Nos.1 & 2. The Low Lower Appellate Court dismissed th ssed the cross-objec objections filed by defendant Nos t Nos.1 to 5, affirming the finding findings recorded b ded by the Trial Court on Issue Nos ue Nos.1 & 2. However, the finding indings recorded by ded by the Trial Court on Issue Nos.5 rving Nos.5 and 6 stand reversed, observing RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 4 that the T the Trial Court erred in discarding arding the evidence adduced by th by the plaintiffs, h tiffs, holding the same to be beyond yond pleadings and that the recitals citals in the sale de ale deed do not prove the necessity essity as it is improbable that a perso person would sell sell land worth Rs.35,000/- merely to erely to repay the loan of Rs.1500/-. [8] The suit filed by the plaintiffs intiffs stands decreed by the impugne pugned judgment a ment and decree passed by the Lower A ower Appellate Court. [9] Learned Senior Counsel ap el appearing for the appellants ha nts has assailed the ed the findings recorded by the Courts Courts below. He submits that both th both the Courts erre ts erred in holding the land, in question uestion, to be ancestral. [10] Learned Senior Counsel for el for the appellants submits that th that the finding is b ng is based upon Mutation i.e. Exhib Exhibit PW1/A and jamabandi for th for the year 1973 1973-1974 i.e. Exhibit P-7. The Cou e Court even did not bother to read th read the revenue rec ue record. Merely for the reason that n that the plaintiffs claimed to be son be sons of Ghasi R hasi Ram and Kamal Singh-DW2 ad W2 admitted that Ghasi Ram receive received land after t after the death of his father, the land h land has been held to be ancestral. H tral. He submits tha its that no revenue excerpthas been been produced to prove that the lan the land travelled fr lled from three generations prior to to Ghasi Ram. There is no evidenc vidence on record to cord to link land in the hands of Molar Molar to Moola and thereafter to Gha Ghasi Ram. It h . It has been contended that since since mutation was sanctioned as p as per Section 8 o on 8 of the Hindu Succession Act by by Ghasi Ram-defendant No.6, lan 6, land in his hand s hands cannot be said to be ancestral. estral. Since he succeeded to the esta e estate as per law, r law, it’s a case of succession and no and not survivorship. Reliance is bein is being placed upo d upon ‘Lal Chand (since decease eceased)through his LRs and other others versus Sta s State of Haryana and others’, 20 s’, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 532, ‘Jaga , ‘Jagat Ram and o
Legal Reasoning
and others versus Smt. Rajo and ot and nd others’, 2019 AIR (Punjab and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 5 Haryana) ana) 38, ‘Maan Jain versus Sur s Suraj Parkash Jain and others others’, 2018(3) R (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 759, ‘Trijugi Narain (Dead) through Leg Legal Representa esentatives and others versus S sus Sankoo (Dead) through Leg Legal Representa esentatives and others’, 2021(15) 1(15) SCC 561, ‘Hari Kishan an an and others ver rs versus Rati Ram and others’, 201 s’, 2018(4) PLR 783, ‘Gurmail Sin il Singh versus Raj s Rajbir Singh and another’, 2014 , 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 397, ‘Kamles amlesh Devi vers sus Mangat Ram and others’, rs’, 2016 AIR (Punjab and Haryana aryana) 192, and ‘Arshnoor Singh versus Harpa Harpal Kaur and others’, 2019 AI 19 AIR (Supreme reme Court) 3098. [11] It has been further contended t nded that the recitals from the sale dee ale deed proved tha ed that Ghasi Ram and Loona availe availed loan for construction of we of well. They had t had to repay the loan. PW-2/Manoh Manohari wife of Ghasi Ram admitte dmitted that the lan he land is 3-4 miles away and they ha ey had no income from the same. Th The land was so was sold for construction of a shop a shop and house by Ghasi Ram and fo and for marriage of iage of his daughter. The same stands stands proved from testimony of DW f DW-5, DW-6 and 6 and DW-7. The sale of land was was for better management of affai f affairs and cannot annot be held to be an act of waste. L aste. Lastly, he submits that Ghasi Ra asi Ram was one of one of the five vendors who sold 49 ld 49 kanals and 12 marlas of land b land by way of imp of impugned sale deed. The plaintiff aintiffs, if at all, can have a grievanc rievance with respec respect to sale of share by Ghasi Ram i Ram which is 9 kanals 9 marlas. Th The Lower App er Appellate Court, without apprecia preciating the same, has set aside th side the entire sale e sale deed. Therefore, the impugned ugned judgment and decree deserves erves to t aside. be set aside [12] Per contra, learned counsel fo nsel for the respondents submits that s that it stands prov s proved on record that the land, in qu hasi , in question, was inherited by Ghasi RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 6 Ram from from his father. Ghasi Ram bein being karta of Joint Hindu Fami Family comprising ing of Ghasi Ram and his sons & &daughters had no right to sell th sell the same witho without there being any legal neces necessity. Lower Appellate Court ha ourt has rightly held ly held that the sale of land was witho s without legal necessity. Accordingl rdingly, the present resent appeal deserves to be dismissed missed as re-appreciation of evidence dence is beyond the ppeal. nd the scope of regular second appeal. [13] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon ly gone through rec gh records of the case. [14] In the considered opinion of t on of this Court, the primary issue th sue that needs consi s consideration of this Court is: “Whether sale of the land by d by defendant No.6-Ghasi Ram wa m was without legal necessity? [15] The entire case of the plainti laintiffs is based upon averment th ent that Ghasi Ram i Ram was a spendthrift person, w , who sold a Joint Hindu Fami Family property w erty without there being any legal nec al necessity. Surprisingly, Ghasi Ra asi Ram has been im een impleaded only as a proforma de defendant. The allegations again against Ghasi Ram i Ram in the plaint read as under:- “5. That defendant-Ghasi R si Ram and Banwari Lal had no leg legal necessity to sell suit land men mentioned in paragraph No.1 in th in the plaint. Defendant-Ghasi Ram Ram is a spendthrift person and nd in view of above sale deed as me s mentioned in paragraph No.1 of th of the plaint is without any legal nec l necessity and is not binding upon th on the rights of the plaintiffs.” [16] The same was responded in the led by in the joint written statement filed by RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) defendant N dant Nos.1 to 4 as under:- “5. That Paragraph No.1 of o.1 of the plaint is wrong, hence denie denied. It is wrong to contend that Gh Ghasi Ram and Banwari Lal had n l had no legal necessity to execute sal te sale deed under challenge. This This is also wrong, hence denied th ied that Ghasi Ram is a spendthri ndthrift person. It is also wrong to sta to state that the sale deed was affecte affected without legal necessity. It is It is also wrong to state that the sa the sale deed, in question, is not bindin binding upon the rights of the plaintiff laintiffs. The sale deed, in question estion, has been executed for leg r legal necessity. The vendors have have sold land, in question, for leg or legal necessity as mentioned in d in paragraph No.1 of the writte written statement for repaying the lo the loan for raising construction, fo ion, for spending on marriage, for co for constructing shop and for startin starting business in Dadri. The land, i land, in question, was a land of inferio inferior quality, which was not yielded ielded any crop. The same was far fro from their place and he was not a not able to cultivate the same. Th e. The vendor was having difficulty iculty in cultivating the same and wa and was not able to repay any benefit nefit. The debt of vendors Ghasi Ra asi Ram and Banwari Lal was increasi ncreasing and their goodwill in socie society was getting a hit. The oth he other vocations were also gettin getting affected. Their domestic nee ic needs were not getting fulfilled. lled. It was in these circumstances th nces that Ghasi Ram and Banwari L ari Lal were left with no other choic choice but to sell the land. From th rom the sale of land, the business o ess of Ghasi Ram and Banwari L ari Lal RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document increased. The debt was repaid were repaid and the domestic needs were RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 8 satisfied. Their goodwill in so in society increased. Thus, it was a t was an act of good management. Sa t. Sale deed (Exhibit D-1) shows th ws that five co-shares, namely Ghasi hasi Ram son of Moola son of Mola Molar, Banwari Lal son of Moola, oola, Smt. Chitra @ Chitro, Gindor indori, Prem daughters of Moola toge la together sold ½ share of their land land in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 1 to 5. It has been mentioned in th d in the sale deed itself that their pre eir predecessors-in-interest Loona an ona and Moola were under debt and t and that the amount is required fo ired for repayment of the debt and dom nd domestic needs. To meet the sam e same, the vendors were selling 49 ng 49 kanals 12 marlas of land fo and for consideration of Rs.35,000 5,000/-. Lower Appellate Cou Court re-appreciated the evidence to nce to hold that the recital in the sa the sale deed (Exhibit D-1) regarding l rding legal necessity is not sufficient icient to discharge the onus which rest rests upon vendees to prove that th that the sale was for legal necessity. T ity. The Lower Appellate Court furth further held that the Court erred in ed in observing that the vendor-Gha Ghasi Ram only received an amount mount of Rs.5,000/- out of the total sa otal sale consideration, without there there being any evidence. In th In the considered opinion of this Co his Court, Lower Appellate Court als also erred in misreading the sale de sale deed (Exhibit D-1). There can’t b can’t be any quarrel with the proposit roposition that it is for the vendees dees to prove that the sale deed was f was for legal necessity. Surprisingl risingly, the allegation is against defe defendant No.6 of having sold lan land without any legal necessity bu ity but he was impleaded as a proform roforma RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendant. Once, the sale deed y the le deed itself spelled out not only the RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 9 fact of there being legal neces necessity but also mentioned about th bout the necessities faced by the ven he vendors, burden shifted upon th pon the plaintiffs to disprove the sam he same. Defendants also proved o ved on record the applications filed filed with Municipal Committee fo ttee for sanction of the plans to link o link the constructions with the sa the sale proceeds to be spent thereupon reupon but the plaintiffs apart from ba om bare oral assertion that Ghasi Ram Ram was a drunkard led no evidence dence to rebut the evidence proved on ed on record by the defendants. Th The observation made by Lower ower Appellate Court with respect spect to absence of evidence to prove prove that Ghasi Ram only receive received Rs.5,000/- out of the total sal tal sale consideration is against in th t in the teeth of bare provision of law f law as contained under Section 47 o n 47 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1 Act, 1882. The total sale consideratio deration of Rs.35,000/- was received eived by sale of land which was was co- owned in equal share by five v five vendors. Thus, they were entitle entitled to the sale proceeds in equal sh qual shares i.e. Rs.7,000/- each.” [17] The defendants pleaded legal legal necessity of Ghasi Ram and th and that the sale de ale deed under challenge was execut executed by Ghasi Ram on account o ount of there being being legal necessity and was an act an act of good management. So is th o is the recital in s al in sale deed executed by Ghasi Ra asi Ram challenged by way of prese present suit. [18] The suit was filed vilifying ying Ghasi Ram. The best person erson to respond to nd to the same was Ghasi Ram. Surp . Surprisingly, he was arraigned only only a proforma d rma defendant. His version recorded orded in the covenants contained in sa d in sale RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deed have have gone un-rebutted. No effort was made even to examine him e him. RSA-746-1994 1994 (O&M) 10 Defendants ndants have produced application filed n filed by Ghasi Ram seeking sanctio sanction of site plan te plan. Plaintiffs led no evidence to r ce to rebut the same. The vital piece o piece of evidence h nce has been brushed aside by Lo by Lower Appellate Court merely o rely on conjecture cture that defendants failed to prove r prove raising of construction. Plaintif laintiffs were in po in possession of best piece of evide f evidence qua construction. Plaintif laintiffs failed to le d to lead any evidence. Instead of d d of drawing adverse inference, Low Lower Appellate llate Court discarded the evidence dence led by plaintiff and recorde ecorded patently pe tly perverse finding. [19] The plaintiffs were required t uired to rebut the evidence led by th by the defendants. dants. They having failed to lead an lead any evidence apart from the ba the bald statement t ment that Ghasi Ram was a drunkard nkard, findings recorded by the Low e Lower Appellate llate Court cannot be sustained. T ed. The same need to be set asid t aside. Findings re ings recorded by the Trial Court on Is t on Issue Nos.5 & 6 are ordered to b ed to be restored. [20] As a sequel of discussions hel ns held hereinabove, the present appe t appeal succeeds an eeds and is allowed. The judgment ment and decree passed by the Low Lower Appellate C llate Court is hereby set aside and th the judgment and decree passed b ssed by the Court o ourt of the first instance is hereby rest restored. Pending miscellaneous applic application(s), if any, stands dispose posed (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No [21] off. .2025 17.10.2025 ‘R. Sharma' RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document