RANCHODSINGH Vs. PADAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal by the defendants No. 2 3 in the suit against his reversing judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court was admitted for bearing on 23.1 79 on the following questions of law : - -

(2.) IT has come on record and also does not appear to be in controversy that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and his defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 3) are wives of one Bapusingh. The plaintiff/respondent No. 2 is the son of Bapusingh and the respondent No. 3 is his real mother. The appellants are purchasers of the suit land from the minor respondent No. 2. The sale deed was executed by his mother Bhanwarbai as his guardian, which was challenged by filing the said suit by the respondents No. 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but decreed by the lower Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) THE aforesaid argument deserves to be rejected. After attaining majority, a minor may elect to represent his case personally otherwise, he will continue to be represented by the guardian without there being any legal infirmity in that regard. Accordingly, it is not necessary to give fresh notice of appeal to the respondent No. 2 after his attaining the age of majority. So far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, if the learned Counsel has filed a Vakalatnama on his behalf as contended, the same be accepted. His argument on his behalf was the same as on that of the appellant No. 2. Hence, here also I find no legal infirmity in deciding the appeal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties.