Legal heirs of the transferor's deceased son challenged a sale deed executed by their grandmother as without consideration and legal necessity. Both courts dismissed the suit. The High Court found no substantial question of law, noting the transferor admitted receipt of consideration and plaintiffs lacked locus to challenge it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
********
117
RSA-6431-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.09.2024
Narayani and Others …..Appellants
Vs. Rajdulari and Another .….Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate for the appellants.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Plain�ffs of the case are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of the Courts below.
Submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants have
been heard.
It emerges that defendant No.2- Ram Kali (respondent No.2 herein) was absolute owner in possession of the suit property. She had two sons namely Sarwan Singh and Dharamveer. Sarwan Singh has expired. Plain�ffs (appellants herein) are the legal heirs of Sarwan Singh. Defendant No.1- Smt. Rajdulari (respondent No.1 herein) is the wife of Dharamveer.
Plain�ffs challenged the sale deed dated 01.04.2014 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the property in dispute on the ground that it was without considera�on and without any
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.13 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-6431-2018 (O&M) -2-
legal necessity. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit.
It is conceded by learned counsel for the appellants that property in dispute was absolute property in the hands of a female Hindu i.e. defendant No.2. Not only this, in the wri3en statement jointly filed by defendants, it has been stated that sale deed was validly executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Plain�ffs have no locus to challenge the sale deed on the ground of non-payment of considera�on, when the transferor i.e. defendant No.2 does not deny the receipt of considera�on.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. No substan�al ques�on of law is found to be involved.
Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
September 12, 2024 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.13 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second appeal lies against concurrent findings dismissing a challenge to a sale deed executed by an absolute female Hindu owner without legal necessity.
Narayani and Others
Rajdulari
Ram Kali
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
