HARBANS SINGH Vs. MEHNGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sajjan Singh is alleged to have purchased agricultural land in the names of his wife and three sons. One of the sons was a minor. On 4th April, 1962, by means of three deeds, major portion of the property was sold by the father, acting on behalf of his minor son, his two sons and his wife to Mehnga Singh and others. The remaining property was also gifted by the same persons to the vendees on 4th April, 1963. One of the sons, namely, Harbans Singh, on becoming a major, brought a suit in July, 1970 against the vendees for possession of his one-fourth share in the said property. His allegations were that this father had no right to sell his share without first obtaining permission from the court under Section 8 of the hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The sale regarding his share was therefore, void and he was entitled to get possession of the property from the vendees.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the vendees, but was ultimately decreed by the trial court. Therefore, the vendees went in appeal before the learned Additional District judge, Amritsar. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of their written statement. Their prayer was that they should be allowed to take up a new plea, namely, that Harbans Singh, minor, was not the owner of the property but he was merely a benamidar for his father, who had in fact purchased the entire property and the belonged to him. Consequently, the father could sell the same. In any case, the minor should be asked to refund the benefits that he had derived under the said sale.

(3.) THIS application was opposed by the plaintiff and it was urged that the defendants should not be allowed to take inconsistent pleas. The same was, however, allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on payment of Rs. 250/as costs to the plaintiff. Against that order, the plaintiff has come here in revision.