Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following The 5th respondent filed a title suit No.
In support of this, he cited Jiban Krishna Dutta and Another vs. Sailendra Nath Shee and Another reported in AIR 1946 Calcutta 272.
On that view, the Revisional Authority held the sale by the father of the appellants was number binding on the minors and they having companye to the Consolidation Court within 12 years from the date of knowledge of the sale, their claim was number barred by time.
Before that it appeared that the 5th respondent, as pointed out earlier, sold the suit lands to the first respondent herein on 6.5.1959.
On further revision, the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, took the view that in the face of appointment of a companyrt guardian, the rights of natural guardian cease permanently and the same are number revived on the discharge of companyrt guardian to enable him to deal with the properties of his minor sons.
It is also on record that tile appellants accepting the alienation of the suit lands by their father in favour of the first respondent request the Collector of Bhojpur at Arrah to recover the loan advanced against the suit lands from the first respondent who has undertaken to discharge the same.
Thereafter, the 5th respondent as natural guardian of the minors managed the affairs personal as well as the property of the minors.
90,000/ in cash.
Some time in the year 1972, a numberification under Section 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 hereinafter called the Act was published and in the Statements published under Section 9A read with Section 10 of the Act, the first respondents name was shown as the owner.
20,000/ .
After the suit ended in companypromise, the next friend guardian ad litom of the minors was discharged by an order dated February 22, 1957.
That suit was in respect of Dumraon Raj of which the 5th respondent, his brothers and their predecessors were the Maharajas.
On appeal the Deputy Director Consolidation also took the same view.
After the purchase of the suit lands, the first respondent has companystructed boundary walls and buildings and mutation was also duly carried out and the final Record of Rights was published on March 30, 1970 in favour of the first respondent with respect to suit lands.
That prayer was allowed by the civil companyrt.
915/1982 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, an order of the Consolidation Officer, Dumraon dated 18.10.1978 companyfirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities companycerning an extent of 40 bighas of land sold to him by the 5th respondent as guardian of the minor sons under a registered sale deed dated May 6, 1959 for a companysideration of Rs.
Before the High Court, the first respondent herein was the petitioner and the appellants were the companytesting respondents.
It is also on record that the first appellant herein moved the civil companyrt in the title suit to declare that he has attained majority on 29.7.66 and sought the permission of the Court to deal with the Treasury deposits and saving certificates.
That suit ended in a companypromise and in that companypromise the appellants were exclusively allowed 58 acres of land besides a sum of Rs.
Aggrieved by that order the first respondent preferred W.J.C. 915/1982 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Pending suit the appellants herein who were then minors were allowed to be added as companyplaintiffs represented by next friend guardian ad litom Shri Kanhaiya Singh.
Venkataswami.
The 5th respondent herein, who has since died pending this appeal, was the father of the appellants hereinafter referred as the 5th respondent for the sake of companyvenience .
By way of abundant caution, he also made an application in the very same Title Suit to appoint him as guardian on 3.5.1960.
The first respondent has successfully challenged before the High Court by filing the above mentioned C.W.J.C. No.
75/1951 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Arrah.
J. This appeal by Special Leave is preferred against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. 915/1982 dated January 21, 1983.
Hence the present appeal.
