Palwinder Singh vs Amarjit Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009

R.S.A.No.549 of 2004                                           1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                               R.S.A.No.549 of 2004

                               Date of Decision : 26.08.2009

Palwinder Singh                                     ...Appellant

                               Versus

Amarjit Singh and others                            ...Respondents


CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present: Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate,
         for the appellant.

          Mr. V.G.Dogra, Advocate,
          for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby

suit to challenge the sale deed dated 29.6.1966 and to claim joint

possession of land measuring 35 Kanals 19 Marlas, was dismissed.

It is the case of the plaintiff that he was minor on the date of

execution of the said sale deed, which is executed by him and his brother,

as his date of birth is 17.12.1950. Since, he was minor on the date of

sale, therefore, the sale qua his share of the property is ineffective and not

binding upon the plaintiff.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate
R.S.A.No.549 of 2004 2

Court found that it was open to the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed

within three years of his attaining majority. Since, the suit has been filed

in the year 1992 i.e. much beyond the period of three years from the date

of attaining of majority, the said suit is barred by limitation.

The reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court cannot

be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Sale by

minor is voidable. Therefore, it was open to the minor to seek declaration

to avoid the sale deed within three years of the attaining of majority.

Having failed to do so, the learned first Appellate Court was justified in

dismissed the suit.

The first Appellate Court has found that it is not proved that the

plaintiff was in fact born on 17.12.1950 as the School Leaving Certificate

Ex.PW-2/1 is not proved to be executed. No argument was raised to

counter the said finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court.

In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question

of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal.

Dismissed.

26.08.2009                                        (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                                 JUDGE