BRIJ KISHORE Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 15A/96 by 4th Addl. District Judge, Sagar, affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.2.96 in Civil Suit No. 2A/95 by Ist Civil Judge, Class I, Sagar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the sale deeds dated 8.8.80 and 25.7.83 executed by his father Mukundi Kachhi were illegal and inoperative, and do not bind plaintiff-respondent and decreeing his claim for possession of the suit land.

(2.) THE facts as pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent and relevant for the disposal of this appeal stated in brief are, that he is the owner of Khasra No. 163/3 area 0.08 acre, Khasra No. 165/2 area 0.67 acre and Khasra No. 168/4 area 1.51 acre, situate at village Surkhi, Tahsil and district Sagar. The said land was given to the plaintiff, during the life-time of his mother, by registered deed of settlement, dated 18.1.1975. The plaintiff-respondent therefore became the owner of suit land and remained in its possession. The name of the plaintiff- respondent was also recorded in the revenue papers. The defendant Mukundi Kachhi - the father of the plaintiff, by sale deed dated 8.8.80 sold land bearing Khasra No. 163/3 and Khasra No. 165/2 total area 75 decimals to defendant No. 2 Sadarani. Further the defendant No. 1 - appellant on 25.7.83 by a registered sale deed purchased Khasra No. 168/4 area 1.51 acre from Mukundi Kachhi. The plaintiff-respondent further averred that his father-Mukundi Kacchi had no right title or interest over the suit land. Mukundi was not entitled to alienate the property of the plaintiff-respondent who was a minor; without obtaining the permission of the competent Court. It was further averred that the sale was without any legal necessity. Hence, the suit for declaration and possession.

(3.) THIS second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :