RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No.1 has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, directing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to be decreed, declaring the sale -deed dated 3.7.1963 not binding on the plaintiff/respondent No.1, followed by decree also for recovery of possession.

(2.) ON 3.7.1963, Padmabai, the defendant/respondent No.1 acting as guardian of minor Arjunsingh plaintiff/respondent No.1, executed a registered deed of sale alienating the interest of the minor in the suit property, an agricultural holding, to the defendant No.1/appellant. Suit was filed for avoidance of the deed on the ground that the mother alienating the suit property could not have acted as guardian in doing so without seeking permission of the District Court u/s.8.of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Strangely enough, plea taken in the written statement was that on the date of sale Arjunsingh was not a major but a major and the sale -deed being in his knowledge, he was stopped from challenging it. Whatever be the plea, the sale was liable to be avoided. If Arjunsingh was major then he and he alone could have made an alienation of the suit property and none else could have acted as his guardian so as to transfer his property to anyone else. If he was a minor, then the permission of the District Court authorising the natural guardian to transfer his interest in the property was a must. The transaction entered into by the guardian without such permission was avoidable at minor's instance and by instituting the suit he could avoid the sale. It cannot be said that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit.

(3.) THE contention as raised before this Court for the first time, was not raised before any of the Courts below. The litigation has been pending since the year 1966 and by this time a period of about 27 years has elapsed. Till this date, the necessity of amending the pleadings by mending the defence and thereby affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting modified but a specific case, also inviting decision of the Court thereon, has not dawned upon the appellant. No indulgence can be shown to such litigant who is not at all diligent. On the pleadings before the Court and on the issues which have been tried, it cannot be said that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are erroneous in any manner whatsoever.