Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16647 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 303
Decided on: 09.03.2022
Present:
Mr. C.B. Goel and Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocates for the appellants
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Sale of property by father – Legal necessity -- Suit by appellants/plaintiffs for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the alienation made by their father was without legal necessity -- Both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have concurrently found that the sale was due to legal necessity and the plaintiffs failed to prove that such sale was not for valid consideration – Land in question was under a mortgage for an amount of Rs.13,000/- -- Total sale consideration was Rs.28,000/- -- It has also come on record that vendor required the money for repayment of the mortgage amount, purchase of a diesel engine of a tubewell and the marriage expenses of his niece – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.
(Para 1-5)
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the alienation made by their father was without legal necessity. Both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have concurrently found that the sale was due to legal necessity and the plaintiffs failed to prove that such sale was not for valid consideration.
2. Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. Learned counsel representing the appellants contends that both the courts have recorded a finding that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity.
3. It is evident from the reading of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court that the land in question was under a mortgage for an amount of Rs.13,000/-. The total sale consideration was Rs.28,000/-. It has also come on record that Jagir Singh, the vendor required the money for repayment of the mortgage amount, purchase of a diesel engine of a tubewell and the marriage expenses of his niece.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out.
5. Hence, dismissed.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********