Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abnash Chander And Anr. vs Abhimany Ansal And Ors. on 16 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)108PLR453
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1.This is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below Whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the sale executed by their father being without consideration, illegal and thus not binding upon them, was decreed.
2. Plaintiffs challenged the sale deeds dated 17.1.1972 and 22.2.1972 executed by their father Tek Chand on the ground that the same was in respect of the ancestral/Joint Hindu Family property and being without consideration and legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate are void and illegal and so sought consequential relief of joint possession of the land sold with Tek Chand, defendant No. 4, their father. In the plaint, the plaintiffs mentioned as to how the property came in possession of their father from their grand-father and so was stated to be ancestral/Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs, and defendant No.4 their, father. As regards the sale executed by their father in favour of defendants, it was alleged that Sh. Gurdarshan Lal, defendant No. 3 was in service of defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 had implicit confidence in defendant No. 3 Gurdarshan Lal as a trusted manager and so defendant No. 4 being greatly perturbed over the pending agrarian legislation and in order to save his land from the provisions of the pending agrarian legislation ostensibly made transfers in favour of the defendants and some other relations of Gurdarshan Lal There was no need to dispose of this property at the relevant time. Even the consideration/sale price alleged to have been paid by the vendee at the time of the registration of the sale deed was, in fact, given by their father Tek Chand. Thus, on these grounds the sale deeds executed by Tek Chand were stated to be without legal necessity or an act of good management or otherwise for the benefit of the estate.
3. Defendants No.1 and 2 - vendees - resisted the suit of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds namely, (i) that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action; (ii) separate suits in respect of two separate sale deeds ought to have been instituted by the plaintiffs; (iii) proper court fee has not been paid on the suit. In addition thereto, defendants denied that plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 ever constituted Joint Hindu Family. In. fact, Tek Chand defendant No, 4 is an agriculturist. His fore-fathers were also agriculturists and they followed agricultural customs of Punjab in the matter of alienation. It was also alleged, that the plaintiffs and their family have never followed Hindu Law in the matter of alienation. It was also denied that the plaintiffs and defendant No. constitute Joint Hindu Family. According to the defendants, it is long back that the Family of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 divided the property inter se and so the plaintiff and defendant No.4 ceased to constitute Joint Hindu Family. Regarding the sale deeds, it was stated that defendant No.4 sold the land to defendants No.1 and 2 for a valuable consideration which was paid partly in advance while the remaining sum was tendered before the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. As a matter of fact, after the Indo Pak War of 1971 defendant No.4 Tek Chand made up his mind to shift from Feroezepur to some far off place from the border and started selling his agricultural land vide various deeds executed by him in this regard. The sales, thus, were effected by Tek chand for legal necessity which sale otherwise are for the benefit of the estate.
4. In replication, averments made in the plaint were reiterated, whereas contents of the written statement were dinied /refuted
5. on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family? OPP
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD.
3. Whether the present suit is not within time? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (objected to).
5. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 effected improvements over the suit land. If so, to what effect? OPD.
6. Whether Gurdarshan Lal defendant No. 3. was appointed as Manager for looking after the land of Joint Hindu Family situated village Dastusl Sahib Wala and Mohkam Khan ? OPD
7. Whether the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 were without consideration and -legal necessity or benefit' to the estate of joint Hindu Family ? OPP
8. Whether the land in suit was sold by the Plaintiffs' father for a valid consideration and legal necessity ? OPP
9. Relief.
6. The following additional issues were also framed on 7.1.1980:-
1-A / Whether the family of the plaintiffs and Tek Chand defendant is governed by agricultural custom in matters of alienation. If so, to what effect ? OPD.
2-A / Whether the suit land was the joint family property of the plaintiffs and Tek Chand defendant at the time of impugned sale ? OPP.
3-A / Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.
4-A / Whether the plaintiff has not cause of action ? OPD.
7. The trial Court decided issues No. 1,6,7 and 2-A in favour of the plaintiffs and the remaining issues onus of which was upon the defendants against them. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court.
8. These findings of the trial Court in respect of the material issues with respect to the nature of the property i.e. ancestral/Joint Hindu Family whether legal necessity or an act of good management; payment of amount and point of court fee and limitation were pressed by the appellants. Challenging the finding of the trial Court with regard to valuation of suit; it was urged by the appellants that the suit in substance is for cancellation of the sale deeds and so the court fee payable has to be ad valorem on the sale consideration. The lower appellate Court in this regard. According to the Court sales made by the father of the plaintiffs have been challenged on the ground of want of legal necessity or an act of goods management by a Karta in respect of the joint Hindu family property. So once the Court comes o the conclusion that such sale could not be made by defendant No. 4 declaration that sale deeds are null and void is, in fact, consequential. Thus Court came to the conclusion that no fault can be found with the finding of the trial Court in this regard. Similarly the Court found no merit in the plea of the appellants that the suit has not been filed within the period of limitation. As per Article 109 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, suit filed by a Hindu governed by Mitakshra law his father's alienation of ancestral property is 12 years from the date the alience takes possession of the property. It was thus said that the suit was within limitation.
9. The next point which, was hotly contested by tile appellants was the finding of the trial Court in respect of issue no. 1-A whether the plaintiffs and Tek Chand are governed by the agricultural custom in the matter of alienation. According to the appellants, the parties follow agricultural custom in the matter of alienation. As per evidence on family of the plaintiffs and their fore-
fathers had been agriculturists and residing in village; have held the office of Lambardar of the village and, in fact, were in no other vocation except tilling the land or managing the same through the help of servants and siris. The lower appellate Court on perusal of evidence had found no merit in this submission of the appellants as well. In support of its conclusion, the Court highlighted the fact that 'Khatries' of this village are not agricultural tribe. No such instance has been cited where 'Khatries' have followed the agricultural custom. The mere fact that members of such a tribe own land is not sufficient to hold that they follow agricultural custom. The Court declined to rely upon an instance of 'Khatri' of village Jhanjian in Tehsil Ferozepur as it was found that village Jhanjian, in fact, was founded by jhanjian khatris and those khatris of the village follow agriculture as their profession. Examining on fact, it was found that neither Tek Chand nor his father Lekh Raj or even earlier their grand-father Kishore Chand ever cultivated the land themselves at any point of time.
10. The next material issue which was pressed by the appellants was with regard to the conclusion of the trial Court that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 form Joint Hindu Family as well as that the property in dispute is a joint Hindu Family Property. For this, counsel for the appellants highlighted the fact of disruption of Joint Hindu Family property as is clear, from the documentary evidence adduced by the defendant-vendees. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, parties referred their dispute to an arbitrator who vide his award dated 5.5.1959 decided the dispute referred whereby 23 acres of land was given to Smt. Usha Ansal w/o Tek Chand and 32 acres of land was given to the plaintiffs. Subsequently too, an area measuring 184 Kanals 16 Marias and 127 Kanals 6 Marias came to the share of the plaintiffs on the basis of suits filed by them against their father Tak Chand. The award which became rule of the Court coupled with other two decrees passed by the Civil Court leave no manner of doubt that there was disruption of Joint Hindu Family and viewed thus the present suit could not be decreed by the Court below. The lower appellate Court, however did not find any merit in this plea as well. The lower appellate Court conclusion is better expressed in its own words which reads as under:-
" The question arises whether these transactions could amount to a partition of the Joint family Property. Partition under the Hindu Law consists in a numerical division of the property. It consists in defining the shares of the coparceners in the Joint Property though on actual division by means and bounds is not necessary. What is of essence is the intention to separate. The evidence shows that Tek Chand, his wife and sons are together even now. In view of the Arbitration award and the court cases, referred to above, intention to separate is not at all ascertainable on the other hand, as remarked earlier, the said transactions were mere design to settle the property in a way as could make some saving from the Ceiling Laws. Thus, I affirm the findings of the learned trial Court that the land in dispute in this case was Joint Hindu Family Property."
11. Examining the contentions raised with regard to legal necessity or an act of good management, the Court came to the conclusion that since it was of the view that sales, in fact, have been made without consideration, the same can thus hardly be held for legal necessity or an act of good management. With regard to consideration, the Court found no ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in this regard. On examining the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it came to the conclusion that Gurdarshan Lal, in fact, was not possessed of sufficient means so as to purchase the property in dispute in the name of his sons. Support was also sought from the documents pertaining to the sale deeds produced by Tek Chand.
12. Vendee-appellants have challenged the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below terming the same to be illegal, unsustainable as material evidence adduced by the appellants to disprove the case not set up by the plaintiffs was either side tracked or not adverted to while adjudicating the issues and so on this account the findings are clearly vitiated. According to the counsel, the conclusion of the Courts1 below that the suit was Joint Hindu Family property at the time of the impugned sale is contrary to record as well as judicial pronouncements in this regard. There is no denying the fact that Kishore Chand, great grand-father of the plaintiffs, was owner of a large chunk of land in different villages including Doomni Wala. On his death, the property was inherited by Tek Chand and Madan Mohan since Lekh Raj, their father, had already expired and this way the property could be said to be a Joint Hindu Family property initially but ceased it to be so as the present plaintiffs and Tek Chand chose to divide it; as reflected in the award and the decrees. Thus, at the time when the sale deeds were executed, there was no semblance of Joint Hindu Family. Both the Courts have simply overlooked this material aspects of the matter thereby resulting in passing of impugned decree. Referring to copy of the award dated 23.1959, Exhibit D-14, the counsel urged that as per agreement dated 2.7.1958, one Om Parkash Nayyar was appointed as a sole arbitrator who vide award Exhibit D-14 gave 23 acres to Smt. Usha Ansal (as detailed in the award) and 32 acres to Sarv Sh. Abhimanyu Ansal and Naveen Ansal (plaintiffs) which became a rule of the Court vide Exhibit D-15. With this document, the parties ceased to remain joint Not only this, the present plaintiffs yet were not satisfied with the award as only a small portion of the joint holding had been given to them, took tip the matter once again and claimed further share in the holding of Tek Chand on the basis of family settlement. Since Tek Chand was not agreeable to part with any more land, this impelled the plaintiffs in filing two separate suits. In one suit the claim was for an area measuring 184 Kanals 16 Marias (basing his claim on the basis of family arrangement) which was decreed vide judgment Exhibit D-10 dated 14.5.1971. Another suit filed by both the plaintiffs relating to an area measuring 127 Kanals 6 Marias too was decreed by the Court vide judgment Exhibit D-12 dated 21.4.1972. Pointed reference was made to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint wherein reference was made to a 'Full Family Arrangement'. With this background it was urged by the appellants that there was complete disruption of the Joint Hindu Family fabric and each of them thereafter had been dealing with their respective properties as full owners. In addition thereto, reference was made to the statements of Tek Chand in the suit filed by Naveen Ansal against Baidev Raj and Abhimanyu Ansal against Kamal Kanta, Exhibit D-17 and D-18 respectively which go a long way in belying the assertion made by the plaintiffs. The Courts below have ignored these material documents. So the conclusion arrived at by the Courts can be termed a case of no evidence. According to the counsel, it is admitted case of the plaintiffs that they parted company from their father as has been mentioned in the award dated 2.3.1959 and the subsequent two suits filed in the year 1970 and 1971. To say that the plaintiffs still remain joint with regard to the property which fell to the share of Tek Chand is clearly a case of perversity of the facts.
13. Similarly, the counsel with some amount of vehemence challenged the findings of the Courts below to the effect that both the impugned sale deeds were executed without consideration. According to the counsel, the Courts below have simply ignored these two registered documents which, clearly record the factum of payment and the manner in which the sale amount was paid to Tek Chand-vendor. In one case, the defendants adduced duly hand written receipts which bore Tek Chand's signatures as well to prove the factum of payment. The Courts some how have chosen to ignore the documentary evidence in this regard as well; which approach on the facts of the present case can be termed as irrational. In fact, the Courts below instead of examining the positive evidence led by the defendants to prove the factum of payment of consideration has chosen to go into the financial position of the defendants and his family members. Thus, this finding to stands vitiated as for no cogent reasons the documentary evidence has been side-tracked.
14. Lastly, the counsel submitted that though the defendants have proved on record that they had constructed a house ever the suit land by incurring a huge amount, yet the Courts have not gone into this aspect of the matter and so the findings in this regard is clearly vitiated.
15. Leaned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent by way of preliminary objection has urged that this being essentially a finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For this reliance was placed upon the judgments in cases reported as Deity Pattabhiramaswamy V. Ramachanra Ayyar and Anr. v. Ramalingam Chettiar and Anr., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 302; Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr. v. Muthaluru Bojiappa, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1633; and Ramchandra Pandurang Sonar (deceased) through his heirs and legal representatives and Ors. v. Mulidhar Ramchandra Sonar and others, (1990)4 S.CC.45.
16. Replying on merits, counsel for the respondents gave in detail how the land came to the ownership of Tek Chand respondent from his grand-father. Since his father had predeceased the plaintiffs, so the property was ancestral/Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of Tek Chand. Tek Chand had initially about 600 acres of land which he had been disposing of over a number of years and so was left with approximately 200 acres of land which was stated to be Joint Hindu Family property. It is in the year 1958 that at the instance of his wife Smt. Usha Ansal he agreed to part with some of the holding lest the plaintiffs who were then minors be not deprived of any means of their livelihood and, therefore, the matter was referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator vide award dated 23.1959 gave 32 acres of land to both the plaintiffs and another 23 acres of land to Smt. Usha Ansal-his wife-(particulars of land given in detail in Exhibit D-14). Referring to the award, the counsel urged that the same was not intended to disrupt the joint Hindu Family fabric as is clear from the following words," However, by this award, the rights of the second party in the other property, moveable and immovable in the possession of the first party shall not be affected. The present award is to settle and it settles the dispute referred to me with respect to the apportionment of about 55 acres of agricultural land described above." Thus, this award has rightly been held to be not amounting to disruption of the Joint Hindu Family by the Courts below.
17. Dilating upon the suite filed by the plaintiffs (copies Exhibit D -8 and D-9 and, decreed on the admission statement filed by Tek Chand were with a view to protect the same from the impending land legislation which could adversely affect the rights of the parties. Refuting the assertions made by the appellants that sale deeds were executed for valuable consideration and other wise too were an act of good management or say were for the benefit of the estate, counsel referred to the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below where each one of the pleas raised by the defendants- appellants had been found to be devoid of merit. Explaining further, the counsel urged that, in fact, Gurdarshan Lal, father of the present appellants, was manager with respondent No.4 since 1965. Gurdarshan Lal had been employed to look after his agricultural holdings and so in this process; acquired his confidence. It is during the impending legislation with regard to land reforms that Tek Chand, defendant No. 4, became somewhat anxious and so though of ostensibly parting with his agricultural holding so as to save himself from the new agrarian legislation by which the permissible area could be retained by a landowner was likely to be reduced and in addition thereto such a landowner was to be deprived of his surplus holding as well. Thus, to achieve this, respondent No. 4 chose to execute various safe deeds in favour of sons and other relations of Gurdarshan Lal. This was an act of implicit faith as respondent No. 4 thought that this was he would be able to save his land from falling in the surplus pool. The Courts below have found substance in this plea of the plaintiffs on the ground that Gurdarshan Lal or for that matter the appellants - the present appellants o were not possessed of sufficient means to purchase the land, subject matter of the impugned sale deeds. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of the Courts below which may call for interference with this Court
18. The scope of regular second appeal has been somewhat curtailed with the amendment of 1976. Presently, second appeal can be entertained on a substantial question of law. The expression 'substantial question of law came up for consideration in case reported as Panjak Bhargava and Anr. v. Mehinder Nath and Anr. A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1233, wherein it was held that if the Court took an erroneous view of the fact and the same assumes a substantial character as between the parties, the question arising therefrom will involve a substantial character. Thus, a question directly and substantially affecting the parties would be a 'substantial question of law. The apex Court while holding so took notice of its earlier decision in case-reported as Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1314. Similarly, in case reported as Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, A.I.R. 1992 S.C 1604, the apex Court while dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in second appeal held that where the findings by the Court of facts is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by essentially erroneously approach to the matter, High Court is not precluded from recording proper findings. Even earlier too, in case reported Dibagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra, A.I.R. 1988 S.C 1858 the apex Court held that where in suit the lower Courts had without considering any part of the evidence oral or documentary came to finding of fact, the High Court will be right in reversing the finding. Thus, with these authoritative pronouncements of the Courts, it is to be examined whether the case in hand calls for interference. The tower appellate Court while dealing with the award, decrees of the civil Court, other sale transaction and the declaration forms submitted by the plaintiffs as well as their father Tek Chand before the Collector in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act and the statement of the plaintiff in the present case and the statement of Tek Chand in other civil proceedings, without any discussion brushed aside with a terse observation that the arbitration award and decrees of the civil Court do not exhibit any intention of the parties to separate. In the words of Additional District Judge," in view of the arbitration award and the Court cases referred to above, intention to separate is not at all ascertainable. The Court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that all these transactions were effected with a view to save the property from the Ceiling Laws (exact conclusion already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment). Such a conclusion is not clearly borne on reading of these material documents. The lower appellate Court for no cogent reasons has simply skipped over this material evidence consideration of which has not only a material bearing but if considered would have materially affected the outcome of the litigation. This way it can be said that the aforementioned finding of the appellate Court is vitiated on non consideration of evidence.
19. Brief reference to the documents noticed above is essential. Vide award Exhibit D-14 which became rule of the Court vide Exhibit D-15, the dispute was referred to by the plaintiffs and their mother for decision with regard to their joint holding. A mutually accepted arbitrator was appointed who vide award Exhibit D-14 gave 32 acres to the plaintiffs and another 23 acres to Smt. Usha Ansal. The plaintiffs perhaps were not satisfied with this settlement who once again laid their claim on the basis of family settlement alleged to have been arrived at between the parties way back in the year 1958. Vide plaint Exhibit D-8 claim was made for an area measuring 184 Kanals 16 Marlas and vide Exhibit D-9 in respect of area measuring 127 Kanals 6 marlas, which claims were decreed by the Court vide Exhibit D-10 and D-12 in view of the admission statement made by Sh. Tek Chand, In para No. 5 of the plaint Exhibit D-8,, following averments were made by the plaintiffs, namely, Abhimanyu Ansal and Navin Ansal :
" That for the preservation of peace and concord in the family as well as in the interests of the plaintiffs and the joint estate, the well wishers of the family succeeded in persuading the defendant to agree upon a family arrangement as a consequence of which the plaintiffs on and from 1.4.1958 would be owners in possession of the area of land mentioned in the heading of the plaint out of the area under orchard to be supervised by their mother during their minority. The defendant agreed and so per family arrangement on and from 1.4.1958 the plaintiffs began to hold and possess the area of land measuring 184 Kanals 16 Marias as detailed in the heading of the plaint as exclusive owners."
20. To the same effect is the averment contained in para No. 6 of the plaint, Exhibit D-9, which reads as under:-
" That as the said family arrangement regarding land dated 1.4.1958 did not adequately accord with the status of the plaintiffs and only partially met their needs, therefore, for the advancement of the benefit of the family and for the establishment of harmonious relations between the parties, the well wishers succeeded in persuading the defendant to agree upon a full family arrangement that may bring about permanent concord between the members of the family. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiffs on and from 1.6.1958 began to hold and possess the area of land measuring 127 Kanals 6 Marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint as exclusive owners."
21. A bare perusal of these two plaints coupled with the earlier award of the arbitrator give a clear indication that the parties agreed to separate in April, 1958 and it is on the basis of this agreement that the award and two decrees of the Court were suffered by Tek Chand. Tek Chand too while appearing in the Court accepted the afore-mentioned decrees as well as the award made against him. him In addition thereto, it has come on record and accepted by Abhimanyu plaintiff that he executed certain sale deeds in respect of the land which fell to his share. With this material finding on record, I am of the view that the Courts below erred in law in not viewing the point in controversy in a correct perspective. The land which has now fallen to the share of the plaintiffs in terms of the civil Court decree and the award, the same approximately measures 71 ordinary acres. In addition thereto, 23 acres of land fell to the share of Smt. Usha Rani. From the remaining land measuring about 105 acres, a number of sale transactions were effected by Tek Chand in between the year 1970-71 to 1973-74, thus leaving almost an equal area with that of the plaintiffs. Besides this, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be concluded that the parties remained joint. As per Tek Chand deposition, he is income tax and wealth tax assessee and in these returns has been showing income as his exclusive property which also belies his assertion that he is still joint with his sons. Besides this, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the plaintiffs as well as Tek Chand filed separate declaration forms as envisaged by provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act claiming separate permissible area. In these declaration forms reference was made to the various sale deeds executed by them after the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971 wherein too there is no mention that all these sale transactions were benami or sham and executed solely with a view to save their land from falling in the surplus pool. The Courts below somehow has chosen to accept the bald assertion of the plaintiffs that all these transactions were executed by them or by their father so as to save the land from the surplus pool. It is difficult to accept this proposition at its face value. It also cannot be accepted that the impugned sale transactions were executed in favour of sons of Gurdarshan Lal - Manager of Tek Chand - on account of very cordial relations between them. It is worth noticing that except for these two sale deeds (now subject matter of the present appeal) no other sale transaction has been challenged by the plaintiffs or Tek Chand, though sale transactions are stated to have been executed in favour of near relations of Gurdarshan Lal. Thus, I am of the view that there was disruption in the Joint Hindu Family way back in the year 1958 who thereafter had been asserting their individual claims and the finding recorded by the Courts below is consequently reversed.
22. Similarly, I am unable to accept the conclusion of the Courts below that these sale deeds were executed without consideration and to ward off the stringent effect of the Punjab Land Reforms Act Since part of the amount was paid as earnest money and the remaining before the Sub Registrar, there was no deed for the Courts below to go into the matter as to whether defendants were possessed of sufficient means to purchase the suit land. How and in what manner a person raises an amount is none of the function of the Court. All that it has to be seen is whether, in fact, money was paid to the vendor or was tendered before the. Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The evidence led by the plaintiffs that money, in fact, was supplied by Tek Chand is too difficult to swallow. At least, it does not appeal to a reasonable mind. In fact, no evidence has been led by Tele Chand or the plaintiffs that such an amount was withdrawn from any bank account or from the recognised source so that an inference could be drawn by the Court in this regard. The approach of the Courts below is highly conjectural. This finding of the lower appellate Court too is set aside and is held that sales were executed for consideration.
23. As noticed earlier too, separate declaration forms were submitted by the plaintiffs as well as Tek Chand claiming separate permissible area as per provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. In the declaration forms mention was made with regard to the sales bona fidely effected after the appointed day and before enforcement of the Act, which included the impugned sales. As per Section 4(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, bona fide sale or transaction after the appointed day but before the commencement of the Act is to be exempted while determining the permissible of the declreant i.e. unless it is bona fide the same would affect the permissible limit. The declaration made was duly sworn in the form on an affidavit as well Thus, on the one hand, various sale transactions were shown to be bona fide transactions in the declaration form, yet some of these were being challenged on the pretext that such sales could not be executed by Tek Chand. This plea of the Stiffs in suit is opposite to their declarations before the revenue authorities. In any case, no body can be permitted to state a fact on solemn affirmation before one; forum and take totally a converse stand before another Court. These declaration forms clearly lie the assertion made by the plaintiffs. Impugned sales could be held to be an act or good management (had it been of Joint Hindu Family Property ancestral) in the light of the stringent provisions contained in the Punjab Land Reforms Act As per Punjab Land Reforms Act, surplus land vests in the State for which compensation is payable to the landowner as per Section 10 of the Act If the land sold is valued in terms of Section 10 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, the price paid by the vendees far exceeds the price which the plaintiffs would have become entitled under the Act Perhaps for this precise reason, Tek Chand chose to dispose of his surplus land by means of various sale deeds. Thus, I find no substance in this plea of he plaintiffs as well
24. In civil miscellaneous No. 1134-C of 1985 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayer has been made to adduce in evidence certified copy of CWP No. 5477 of 1984 filed by the plaintiffs along with Tek Chand challenging the vires of the Punjab Land Reforms Act as well as the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Act, wherein the plaintiffs no were averred that they constitute a Joint Hindu Family and that the property owned by them is a Joint Hindu Family Property. Despite notice issued by the Court, no reply has been filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. In view of the findings that the parties ceased to be joint in view of the family settlement, to allow additional piece of evidence will be merely burdening the fife. Hence, prayer is declined.
25. Thus, in view of my findings, the judgments of the Courts below are legally unsustainable and resultantly, I accept the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below and dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. However, the parties will bear their own costs.