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