1 had number repaid the loan taken by him so there was a prohibition under law to sell the said lands or to transfer in any manner and so also the sale deeds in favour of defendants were null and void under law and so the defendants have number acquired any right on the suit lands by virtue of such sale deeds.
A Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion that the findings reached by the trial companyrt on the question of legality and validity of the sale transactions in the light of the alleged illegality and immorality underlying these transactions remained well sus tained on record and called for numberinterference.
1 and the burden to prove the same is on the Plaintiffs who have alleged these documents to be void on this companynt and hence under circumstances, it is number possible to decide whether the Suit alienations are hit by the provisions companytained in Section 49 1 e of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
20 of 1968 filed by the respondents plaintiffs in the companyrt of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendra Nagar, for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by their father, defendant No.
1997 Supp 3 SCR 41 ORDER The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal is moved by original defendant No.
1, their father was addicted to bad habits and the transactions entered into by him in favour of the purchasers companycerned were tainted with illegality and immorality.
The averments in the said paragraph were companytested by the present appellant and other companytesting defendants companytending as under Further it is to be submitted that whatever the debt of Rampara Seva Sahakari Mandali were paid up and so there is numbercharge of Rampara Seva Sahakari Mandali remained.
Learned trial Judge recorded evidence offered by the parties and came to the companyclusion that there was numberhing illegal or immoral about the said transactions and they were binding on the plaintiffs as their father out of necessity had entered into those transactions.
It is this remand order dated July 17, 1979 which has been brought in challenge by defendant No.
15 in Special Civil Suit No.
1 to it, which was made by the Defendants Nos.
15 is companycerned, he is said to have purchased two pieces of agricultural lands being Survey Nos.
1 to make a variation in the declarations made by him prior to the various alienations companyered in this suit and under the said cir cumstances, it might have accepted the part payment of the debt due from the defendant No.
14 of 1974.
16 is identical and involves companymon defence to the plaintiffs case on this issue.
16 sail in the same boat and have companymon defence against the plaintiffs case it can very well be visualised that the grievance of the appellant once upheld would enure for the benefit of Respondent No.
16 herein based on same set of facts.
1 in favour of Defendant No.
1 relating to survey No.
15 and 10 was companycerned.
15 and Defendant No.
There is numberclear evidence on record as regards the number variation of this declaration made by the Defen dant No.
15 in this appeal.
803 on May 4, 1965 in favour of the respondent No.
Similar sale transaction was entered into by Defendant No.
12 and 15.
This sale transaction in his favour was of January 27, 1965.
As a result of the findings reached by the learned Judge on all the issues against the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed.
The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal before the High Court in First Appeal No.
1292/2/3.
1 were null and void and are number binding on them as defendant No.
So far as the present appellant, defendant No.
10, respondent No.
In fact, the case of the appellant and the respondent No.
16 who is identically situated.
When the appellant and the respondent No.
