(1.) In both the aforesaid appeals filed by the plaintiff, common questions of law and fact arises therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. Second Appeal No. 672/1997 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:--
(2.) The defendants in the aforesaid civil suits filed the written statements in which inter alia, it was denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the lands in question. It was further pleaded that the mother of the plaintiff was owner of the lands, which were sold to the defendants and, therefore, there was no need to obtain permission under Section 8 of the Act. It was also pleaded that the suit seeking the relief of declaration is simpliciter not maintainable without seeking the consequential relief of possession. It was pointed that the father of the plaintiff is an attesting witness to the transactions in question.
(3.) The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12-5-1995 inter alia held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the plea that the lands devolved on him by succession. It was further held that the plaintiffs mother sold the lands in question in the year 1971 and till 1980 the plaintiffs father was alive who did not raise any objection and, therefore, inference has to be drawn that the plaintiff's father authorised the mother of the plaintiff to sell the suits lands. It was also held that the plaintiff's mother is the owner of the suit lands. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court were affirmed in appeals by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees, dated 26-4-1997.