PANNILAL Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed before it by the appellant. The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas of land at village Qayampur. The said land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh, the respondents and was sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal, acting as their guardian, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated July 30,1964. Upon attaining majority the respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof, having been made without the permission of the Court, was void. The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and that the sale should, therefore, be deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents. It was also contended that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. The suit, it was also alleged, was barred by limitation because, the sale being voidable and not void, it had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority. The trial Court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it has not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents; that the sale by the respondent's mother without the permission of the Court was void; and that the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Ambala and the High Court failed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placed great reliance upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and submitted that the sale deed should, therefore, be taken to have been entered into by the natural guardian of the respondents for legal necessity and their benefit.

(3.) IN the instant case, there is, as found by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal, no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that the sale deed had been made for the benefit of the minor respondents and his evidence had been eroded in cross -examination so that there was no "reliable evidence on record to show that the alienation in dispute had been made for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the plaintiffs". That the sale was effected without the permission of the Court is not in dispute. The sale is, therefore, in any event, voidable.