MASTER NAGESHWAR CHAUHAN Vs. RUBI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree, dated 17th May, 2000, of learned first Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of District Judge, whereby setting aside the decree of the trial Court, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) FACTS relevant for deciding the appeal lie in a narrow compass. Bholu, the father of defendant -respondent Rubi Ram, was owner in possession of land measuring 2770 sq. metres, bearing Khasra Nos.88, 93 and 98, situate in Chak Gharshal, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, hereinafter called suit land. On 29th June, 1991, he executed writing Ex. PA in favour of the present plaintiffs, whereby he agreed to sell the suit land to them for a sum of Rs.7,500/ -and after receiving the entire amount of consideration delivered the possession to them. Ever since the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land. They filed a suit in the year 1997 for permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant -respondent Rubi Ram, who, on the death of said Bholu, inherited Bholu Rams estate, from interfering in their possession. It was alleged that the defendant -respondent had been threatening to forcibly oust the plaintiffs.

(3.) DEFENDANT -respondent filed appeal against the decree of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit, holding that agreement Ex. PA was void, as the plaintiffs -appellants were minors at the time of its execution. It was also held that the document, on which the claim of the plaintiffs was based, was shrouded by suspicion. Further, it was held that the plaintiffs were not in possession.