Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar And Another vs Tek Chand And Another on 30 January, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30th January, 2014
Rakesh Kumar and another
Appellants
Versus
Tek Chand and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the trial Court whereby their suit for declaration and possession was dismissed and further appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court.
The plaintiff-appellants filed the instant suit against one Bhalle Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) and their father Krishan Kumar (defendant No.2) alleging that defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question which was ancestral property and which Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 2 he could not alienate, the same being Joint Hindu Family property, and that the said sale was without legal necessity. It was further pleaded that Krishan Kumar-defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question to Bhalle Ram-defendant No.1 in order to spend the consideration for immoral habits only, and thus, the appellants sought a decree for declaration that the sale of the suit property made vide a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1968 was illegal, null and void, and not binding upon them. They further sought the relief of possession of the suit property.
Upon notice, defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex- parte and the case was contested by defendant No.1-Bhalle Ram, who took a plea that defendant No.2 had sold the shop in question to him for a valid consideration of `10,000 for a legal necessity and that the property in question was not ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, and as such, the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to challenge the sale. It was further pleaded that the sale was for the benefit of the estate. Certain legal objections were also raised and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the suit property is co-parcenary property as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the parties constituted Joint Hindu Family as alleged? OPP Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 3
3. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are governed by Hindu Law in the matters of alienation as alleged? OPP (objected to).
4. Whether the sale deed dated 18.11.68 in favour of the defendant set No.1 by defendant set No.2 was for legal necessity and for consideration? OPP
5. Whether the alienation was for the benefit of the estate as alleged? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
10. Relief.
Issue No.9 was treated as preliminary issue and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants vide order dated 16.10.1984. At the time of final disposal of the suit, issues No.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, whereas issues No.4 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants. Thus, in view of the findings on issues No.4 and 5 to the effect that the sale was for legal necessity and bonafide consideration and for the benefit of the Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 4 estate, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.1984.
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. The plaintiffs advanced arguments before the first appellate Court only against the findings of the trial Court on issues No.4 and 5, which had gone against them. It was contended that Krishan Kumar had no legal necessity to sell the property in dispute. The lower appellate Court held that the property in question was sold for bonafide consideration which stood proved from the agreement to sell Ex.D4 and sale deed Ex.D5. However, it was held that Krishan Kumar-defendant No.2 had no legal necessity to alienate the property in question and thus, the findings of the trial Court on issues No.4 and 5 were set aside. However, in view of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent Bhalle Ram supported the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit, strongly questioning the findings of the trial Court on issue No.1 submitting that the suit property was received by Krishan Kumar in exchange and was not ancestral as inherited by him vide Ex.P1. The lower appellate Court held that the property inherited by defendant No.2 from his father vide Ex.P1 was ancestral in his hands, however, he exchanged that property vide exchange deed Ex.P4. The lower appellate Court further recorded a finding to the effect that the property in question, which had come to Krishan Kumar on the basis of exchange deed Ex.P4, was not a legal exchange of the properties Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 5 inasmuch as the said exchange deed was never got registered and at the most Krishan Kumar had a defective title over the shop in question which really belonged to Pawan Kumar and Krishan Kumar sold the same to the contesting respondents and since Krishan Kumar never owned the shop in question through a legal document, the plaintiffs cannot assail the transaction on the ground of its being ancestral in nature inasmuch as it was never exchanged through a valid document with shop No.5 which had devolved upon Krishan Kumar from his father on the basis of deed of partition Ex.P1, therefore, the property in question having not been got exchanged legally, cannot be termed as ancestral property and the plaintiffs could not assail such alienation.
Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
This appeal was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 13.02.1986.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration:
(a) Whether the appellate Court can determine an issue which is not arising between the parties?
(b) Whether the appellate Court is competent to give findings holding that no title has passed vide exchange deed to Krishan Kumar?
(c) Whether the exchange Ex.P4 is required to be registered?Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 6
(d) Whether the Registration Act is applicable in the instant case particularly when ancestral property has been exchanged which can be orally also?
In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the trial Court had decided all the issues in favour of the appellants except issues No.4 and 5 whereby it was held that the sale of the property in question was for a legal necessity and appeal was filed by them only against the aforesaid findings. Moreover, under issues No.4 and 5, the lower appellate Court also found that the sale in question was not for a legal necessity, but still it reversed the findings with regard to nature of the suit property holding that the same was not ancestral in nature; whereas no appeal/cross objection was filed on behalf of the defendant-respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that in the absence of any cross- objections or appeal at the instance of the defendant-respondents, the lower appellate Court had erred at law while deciding such issues which were not arising between the parties.
The argument raised is wholly frivolous and is liable to be rejected. It could not be disputed before this Court that under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC, the appellate Court even in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections has ample powers to pass a decree which ought to have been passed. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'K.Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palamappa Gounder' 1998(7) SCC 327.
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 7
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that even the findings of the lower appellate Court to the effect that since the exchange deed was not registered thus there was no valid exchange for want of registration of the exchange deed, are again incorrect and thus, the same are liable to be set aside. According to the counsel, as per the law settled down in various judgments, such as, 'Mata Din v. Sultan and others' 1986 PLJ 696; 'Amar Singh v. Sarna (died) Represented by his LRs' 1982 PLJ 19; and 'Sardara Singh and another v. Harbhajan Singh and others' AIR 1974 P&H 345, an oral exchange in the State of Punjab is permissible and thus, no objection can be taken of such an exchange by way of a document which is un-registered. It is his further argument that the property in dispute which was received by Krishan Kumar by way of a valid exchange of his ancestral property, will assume the nature of ancestral property at the hands of Krishan Kumar-defendant No.2. Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do arise in this appeal and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and has relied upon a judgment rendered in 'Pritam Singh and others v. Mohinder Singh and others' 2009(2) CCC 138 (P&H) to contend that though oral exchange is permissible, yet if an exchange deed has been written, such a document has to be registered, therefore, the Exchange Deed Ex.P4 being unregistered is of no value.
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 8
However, at this stage, it may be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh's case (supra) observed as under:
" The very scheme of the Act clearly shows that the sales, mortgages, leases and exchanges of the immovable property are dealt with on totally different footings and it is futile to urge that one takes colour from the other merely because under Section 118 of the Act, an exchange can be made only in the manner provided for a sale. Mr.Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants, for his wonderful argument relies on Section 1 of the Act "
It may further be noticed that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was noticed by this Court in 'Kishori Lal v. Babu Ram' 2003(2) PLR 54, wherein it was observed as under:
"Even otherwise as has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh's case (supra), the provisions of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act have not been extended to the State of Punjab. In these circumstances, oral exchange is permissible in Punjab. Thus even if it be taken that the aforesaid document Exhibit P-1 was an exchange deed, therefore, still the same did not require any compulsory registration in as much as when the oral exchange was permitted in the State of Punjab then the aforesaid document could not be required to be compulsorily registerable. In these circumstances, ruling out of consideration of the aforesaid document on the ground of its non-registration by the learned First Appellate Court has resulted in findings which are completely vitiated."Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 9
At this stage, it may be noticed that the judgments of Sardara Singh's case and Kishori Lal's case (supra) were not noticed in the case of Pritam Singh's case (supra), and therefore, this Court prefers to follow the judgment of Kishori Lal's case (supra) holding that the findings of the lower appellate Court with regard to exchange deed are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside and it is held that vide Ex.P4 Krishan Kumar got the property by way of a valid exchange.
At this stage, it is also useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in 'Ghauns v. Imam Din and others' 1910 PLR 297, wherein it has been held that in case of an exchange, the character of land would be that of the land parted with and if the latter land was ancestral the acquired land will be equally ancestral.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the dismissal of suit by the courts below submitting further that the findings of the lower appellate Court on issues No.4 and 5 cannot be sustained as there was voluminous evidence on record to hold that the alienation was made by defendant No.2 for legal necessity and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants do not warrant any interference by this Court.
It is useful to refer to the observations of the trial Court, which read thus:
"13. Now the next question to be decided is, whether the above sale was for legal necessity of the Joint Hindu Family or for the benefit of the estate. In the present case, vendee was supposed to prove either the legal Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 10 necessity of the Joint Hindu Family or the benefit of the estate or whether this vendee enquired that the vendor defendant No.2 had a legal necessity to alienate the shop in dispute which was ancestral in his hand. In order to prove the above factum the defendant No.1 himself has testified on oath that he verified from the brothers of the defendant No.2 that this defendant No.2 was in need of money for the maintenance of the family and in order to start some work in the name of business. The agreement deed Ex.D4 reveals that all the brothers of the defendant No.2 had signed on it, meaning thereby that when the defendant No.2 executed the agreement to sell the property in dispute to the defendant No.1 the brothers of the defendant No.2 had the knowledge of the sale and all of them having their consent regarding this sale signed on this agreement deed Ex.D4. This shows that the defendant No.1 took the consent of the brothers of vendor defendant No.2 prior to the purchasing of the property in dispute from the defendant No.2 and that being so the sale is taken to be an act of good management being a bonafide act. In the above opinion of mine I am supported by an authority of our own Hon'ble High Court 1971 Current Law Journal page 15 in Re: Jai Singh etc. Vs. Prem Singh etc. wherein it was held that the reversioners are given the right under customary law to challenge alienations of ancestral property in order to prevent any wasteful or ill-advised alienations so that their right to succeed to the property coming down from the ancestors is properly safeguarded. Where the sale is made by all the joint owners, that alone may show the coming together of two or more minds which, by itself, is a safeguard against any wasteful or ill advised alienations. Where such a joint sale by all the co- owners is further attested and consented to by the nearest Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 11 reversioner the presumption about the sale being a bonafide act of good management is further strengthened. Furthermore, it is admitted by Pawan Kumar PW-6 the real brother of the defendant No.2 that when the defendant No.2 sold the shop in dispute he (defendant No.2) was in need of money for opening his shop, as he was idle and un-employed in those days. It further fortifies the statement of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.2 was certainly in need of some money in order to pull on his family being un-employed and having no means of income in those days. This PW-6 was the closest and nearest man to this defendant No.2 vendor and when he has deposed about his condition in those days, certainly there is no ground to dis-believe the testimony of this PW-6, the plaintiffs witness and relying upon the same I hold that the vendor was certainly in need of money for starting some business to pull on his family. A manager of a Joint Hindu Family can start a new business which is not highly speculative, as held in the authority AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh page 183. That being so the defendant No.2 in the present case, who certainly belonging to a trading class being a Bania by caste was within his competence to alienate the shop in dispute to start a shop though small one in order to make his both ends meet. It is also admitted by the plaintiff PW-7 that in the year of sale in dispute the father of this plaintiff defendant No.2 had no source of income except a shop, which fetched the rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per month. That being so it further fortifies the claim of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.2 was in acute need of money in order to make his both ends meet and to start some work. This PW-7 has nowhere specifically denied that his father was not idle prior to his appointment as clerk with Sh.Kali Ram, Adv.Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 12
This further shows that certainly this defendant No.2 was passing through dark days in the year 1968 when he sold the shop in dispute. Furthermore the PW-8 has stated in his cross-examination that in the year 1968 the defendant No.2 was removed from the service of Chamber. In the same way the PW-9 has stated that the defendant No.2 was removed from the service with Chamber. Thus from the testimony of above two PWs plaintiffs own witnesses it stands further proved that the defendant No.2 was on road in the year 1968 and he had no source of income. Being a person having no source of income he certainly required money to make his both ends meet and in order to maintain his family and in case he sold any property for maintaining his family and to make his both ends meet it can in no way be termed that the sale was not for legal necessity. It is further amazing as to how these plaintiffs PW-1 and PW-2 who were not having their senses in the year 1968, can depose that their father sold the property in dispute without legal necessity. It has not come on the file in any way from the side of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 had sufficient means to pull on his family and that being so there is no ground to dispute the above evidence which clearly proves that the defendant No.2 was in acute need of money in the year 1968 and only for that sake he sold the shop in dispute. The plaintiffs have tried their level best to prove that the defendant No.2 was a habitual gambler and he used to play satta and only in order to make up the loss incurred in satta he sold the shop in dispute, but that is merely an allegation for the sake of allegation as firstly in the plaint it was nowhere averred by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 ever indulged in satta activities and that being so it can no way be taken that the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant No.2 indulged in Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 13 satta activities. Even the plaintiff Rakesh Kumar, who appeared as PW-7 nowhere stated that his father ever indulged in satta activities. He only stated that his father was drunkard and extravagant. There is no cogent evidence on the file to prove that the defendant No.2 was drunkard or extravagant. Much stress has been given on the point that the defendant No.2 was playing satta and he ruined the ancestral property only in order to make up loss incurred in satta. But when there were no such pleadings certainly the evidence led beyond pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also the plaintiff when did not state even a single word in his statement at the time of affirmative evidence regarding satta activities, certainly it is clear that the plaintiffs has created this new ground, after the leading of evidence by the defendants, that the defendant No.2 also indulged in satta activities. The indulging of the defendant No.2 in satta activities has also not been proved on the file as the PW-8, PW-9, PW- 10 and PW-11, who were the members of Chamber of forward business have stated that they never indulged in any illegal activities and the defendant No.2 was also imployee of the Chamber which was duly registered with the Government and that being so it can in no way be taken that this Chamber which was duly registered with the Government was indulging in any satta activity, which is illegal. Furthermore, the PW-9 in his examination in chief has testified on oath that he never saw the defendant No.2 consuming liquor or playing satta. Thus, even the plaintiffs witnesses have exonerated the defendant No.2 from all these bad habits like satta and consumption of liquor. It has also been admitted by this PW-9 that the persons who used to indulge in forward business were not treated as bad persons by the society. It clearly means that serving Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 14 with this chamber was not in any way illegal otherwise, in case the defendant No.2 was indulging in satta activities, he could not have served in the above Chamber. Furthermore this PW-9 in his cross-examination stated that by satta he meant a business and the person, who does this business could not be termed as a person having bad habits. He further admitted that in the business one could earn or lose at any time. That being so, it becomes crystal clear that the story of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 indulged in satta activities or in gambling is a concocted one and I do not find any force in their this stand. Furthermore the PW-7 while appearing in his rebuttal evidence stated in his cross-examination that he could not tell as to what his father used to do or earn and what were his habits in the year 1968. That being so it becomes crystal clear that even the plaintiffs are not sure that their father has been of bad habits and was so in the year 1968. This plaintiff further admitted that shop in dispute was previously on rent with the defendant No.1 at the rate of Rs.30/- per month. He further could not deny that the shop in dispute was sold for increasing the income by starting a new shop. Thus as per the statement of this plaintiff himself, it is clear that the shop in dispute, which was earning only Rs.30/- per month could earn more by disposing it of by way of sale to the defendant No.1 and applying the bonafide mind the defendant No.2 sold the same with the defendant No.1 who was tenant in it. Thus, taking the case from every corner I do not find any ground to hold that the defendant No.2 did not sell the shop in dispute for bonafide and legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate.
14. Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the starting of a new business was not a bonafide necessity of Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 15 the family and even if the defendant No.2 sold the shop in dispute for starting a shop that was not covered under bonafide necessity of the Joint Hindu Family as held in the authority AIR 1960 Madhya Pradesh page 56. The above authority is not at all applicable in the present case as in the present case the defendant No.2 was not starting a new business, rather he was going to start a shop only in order to make his both ends meet and it can in no way be termed as extravagance on the part of the defendant No.2, as from the sale proceeds one can make his both ends meet in one way or the other, in case he has no other means of income. In the present case it has amply been proved even admitted by the plaintiffs witnesses that the defendant No.2 was passing through dark days in the year 1968 and he was virtually on road, when he had sold this shop in dispute to start a shop in order to maintain the family and to earn his livelihood. Thus, I do not find any force in the above contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs.
15. Also it has amply been proved that the defendant No.1 made necessary enquiries regarding the legal necessity of the defendant No.2 for selling the shop in dispute from all his brothers. It was hard to make enquiry from the plaintiffs in those days, as the plaintiffs were in the state infancy in those days. That being so the defendant No.1 acted in a bonafide way to enquire the legal necessity of the defendant No.2 from his brothers from whom it was clearly revealed before the defendant No.1 that this defendant No.2 was in acute necessity of money and that could only be got by selling the shop in dispute. Thus I hold that the sale deed dt. 28.11.68 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 was for legal necessity and for bonafide Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 16 consideration and also for the benefit and need of the estate. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the defendant against the plaintiffs.
A perusal of the aforesaid observations of the trial Court would show that defendant No.2 at the time of selling the property in dispute had also taken consent of his brother. It has also come on record that he was passing through a difficult phase of his life as he was having no income and he needed money to pull up his family.
Though a vague allegation has been leveled by the appellants that their father was a drunkard and extravagant however, there is no evidence on record to prove that defendant No.2 was having bad habits. Even PW-7, while appearing in the witness box, has nowhere stated that his father ever indulged in satta activities. Even the other witnesses produced on record i.e. PW-8 to PW-11, who were the members of Chamber of Forward Business, have stated that defendant No.2 never indulged in any illegal activity and the said Chamber was duly registered with the Government and that being so, it can in no way be taken that this Chamber was indulging in any satta activities, which were illegal. Even PW-9, in his examination in chief, has testified on oath that he never saw defendant No.2 consuming liquor or playing satta. Furthermore, PW-7, while appearing in his rebuttal evidence, stated in his cross-examination that he could not tell as to what his father used to do or earn and what were his habits in the year 1968.
PW-8 has admitted in his cross-examination that in the year 1968, defendant No.2 was removed from service of Chamber and PW-9 has Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 17 corroborated the testimony of PW-8 to this effect. Thus, it stands proved that defendant No.2 was on road in the year 1968 and had no source of income and being a person having no source of income, he certainly required money to make his both ends meet and in order to maintain his family and the appellants, who were minor at that point of time, and in case he sold his property for maintaining his family and to make his both ends meet, it can, in no way be termed that the sale was not for legal necessity. It is shocking as to how the plaintiffs, who were not having their senses in the year 1968, can depose that their father sold the property in dispute without legal necessity.
There is nothing on record to prove that defendant No.2 had sufficient means to pull up his family and that being so, there was no ground to dispute the averments which prove that defendant No.2 was in acute need of money in the year 1968 and only for that sake, he sold the shop in dispute. It is also amply proved on record that defendant No.1 made necessary enquiries regarding legal necessity of defendant No.2 for selling the shop in dispute from all of his brothers.
The lower appellate Court has discarded such evidence on flimsy grounds and by wholly mis-constructing and mis-interpreting the evidence on record.
In the presence of such an evidence, which has remained unrebutted, it cannot be held that alienation of the property in question by defendant No.2 was not for a legal necessity. The lower appellate Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued the evidence on record and because of the misconstruction of evidence, its findings on issues No.4 Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.50 of 1986 (O&M) 18 and 5 have become perverse, and thus, the findings of the lower appellate Court on issues No.4 and 5 cannot be sustained and are hereby reversed and it is held that alienation was for a legal necessity.
In view of the aforesaid findings recorded, while holding that oral exchange is permissible in the State of Punjab and therefore, Krishan Kumar had valid and perfect title in him of the suit property on the basis of a valid Exchange Deed Ex.P4 in view of his ancestral property inherited by him vide Ex.P1 and the property so exchanged had assumed the nature of ancestral in his hands, still appellants are not entitled to any relief because defendant No.2 alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 for legal necessity.
No other argument has been raised.
Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, are answered accordingly.
Resultantly, appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 30, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.11 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court