Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.3 and 4) against the concurrent decrees of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. The suit property was agricultural land bearing Survey No.41/3, admeasuring 10 acres and 28 gunthas. The plaintiffs (respondents) sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 26-11-1992 executed by defendant No.2 (their father) in favour of defendant No.1 was not valid and binding on them to the extent of their shares. The Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring that the sale deed was not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs for 2 acres of land, and directed defendant No.1 to deliver possession of that 2 acres to the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings and maintained the decree. The appellants, who purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings, challenged the concurrent findings in the second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the courts below had concurrently held that the suit property was ancestral property and the plaintiffs had a share in it. The sale by the father was not binding on the plaintiffs' shares. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising in the appeal, as the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Ancestral Property - Coparcenary Rights - Sale Deed - The suit property was held to be ancestral property in which the plaintiffs had a share. The sale deed executed by the father (defendant No.2) in favour of defendant No.1 was not binding on the plaintiffs' shares. The courts below concurrently held that the alienation was invalid to the extent of the plaintiffs' shares. (Paras 2-3) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose. The concurrent findings of fact regarding the ancestral nature of the property and the invalidity of the sale were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ancestral nature of the property and the validity of the sale deed.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ancestral property
- Share of coparcener
- Alienation not binding
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
