BISHESHAR PATHAK Vs. RUP NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the appellants for a declaration setting aside two deeds executed by him in their favour. One was a sale of zamindari property and the other was a lease of sir lands. The plaintiff claimed to have been a minor when he executed these deeds. The trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of the sale-deed on the ground that the plaintiff had been of age when he executed these deeds but allowed the suit in respect of the lease on the ground that a perpetual lease for a sum paid in advance in respect of occupancy rights arising from the sale of sir land was illegal.

(2.) In appeal the District Judge differed from the lower Court's finding as to the plaintiff's majority at the time of the execution of the deeds. He found that he was a minor and gave the plaintiff a decree cancelling both the sale-deed and the lease on condition of certain payment to the defendants. This appeal by the defendants is based on the allegation that certain sums not allowed by the District Judge should have been allowed to them.

(3.) Dealing with the sale-deed for which the consideration was Rs. 1,400, it is common ground that the defendants never paid Rs. 1,100. As to Rs. 300 it was in discharge of a pro-note executed by the minor. The minor's vakil in the trial Court admitted that the sum of Rs. 300 was actually paid to the minor. At least this is a construction which the appellant's counsel would have us to put on a certain recorded admission. On the other hand it is stated by the counsel for the respondent that this admission would not cover this alleged payment. The admission runs thus: All the documents recited in these two deeds have been paid up by the defendants.