NAURATA AND OTHERS Vs. RAUNQI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs Raunqi and Jit sons of Ram Chand, Bachni and Jito daughters of Ram Chand, filed suit for possession contending that they were minors and their mother Parsani sold the land in dispute to Naurata and Jewana Defendants without prior permission of the Guardian Court as envisaged by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Smt. Parsani was said to be the lady of feeble health and thus incapable of entering into the contract of sale, so sale was alleged to be non -est. It was said to be without consideration and free will. The Plaintiffs claimed to have come to know of the sale about a year prior to the date of filing of the suit which was admittedly filed on 17.9.1974, with respect to the sale deed having been executed on 6th June, 1973 in favour of Defendants Naurata and Jewana, who were already mortgagees in possession of the land in dispute.

(2.) THE Defendant No 1 Naurata contested the said suit and inter alia, alleged that the sale was for consideration, Smt Parsani was competent to sell the land in dispute the sale was for legal necessity as they were not capable of redeeming the land and it was for the benefit of the minors. The suit was alleged to be collusive between the Plaintiffs and their mother. The following issues were framed:

(3.) BOTH the parties preferred appeals. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that qua the share of Jito, Bachni and Jit the sale was void since the same was effected without the permission of the Guardian Court and the suit was within 12 years from the date of sale as the same was governed by Article 65 and not by Article 60 of the Limitation Act As regards Raunqi it was found that he had failed to prove that he was minor at the time of sale and Mst. Parsani the original vendee was found to be major. The suit qua latters' shares was found to be not maintainable Thus the suit to the extent of 3/5th share was decreed and the rest of the suit was dismissed.