The trial companyrt framed appropriate issues and came to the companyclusion that it had number been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents that the sale by the respondents mother without the permission of the companyrt was void and that the sale was void and number voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time.
The suit, it was also alleged, was barred by limitation because, the sale being voidable and number void, it had number been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.12.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A No.
The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and that the sale should.
The appeals filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge.
Ambala and the High Court failed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Upon attaining majority the respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof having been made without the permission of the companyrt was void.
2198 of 1986.
Ms. Kawaljit Kochar for J.D. Jain for the Respondents.
The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas of land at village Qayampur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA,J. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order of the Punjab Harvana High Court dismissing the appeal filed before it by the appellant.
M. Ashri for the Appellant.
1155 of 1977.
The said land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh, the respondents, and was sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal, acting as their guardian, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 30th July, 1964.
