RSA No.2379 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2379 of 2010 Decided on : 30.06.2010 Gurdeep Singh & another ... Appellants versus Jaswant Singh & ors. ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 passed in Civil suit No.922 of 26.08.1993 was illegal, null and void , was dismissed. In brief, the case of the appellants is that respondent No.2 Major Singh was the owner of the suit land previously who suffered a decree regarding his share in the suit land in favour of the appellants along with respondent No.3 – Manjit Kaur, who was the mother of the appellants in equal shares vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.1987. The names of the appellants and respondent No.3 were incorporated in the revenue record as co-owners. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 05.07.1988 and 15.06.1989 against the appellants and respondents No.2 & 3. In that suit, appellants who RSA No.2379 of 2010 -2- were minors were served through their mother (respondent No.3) who failed to safeguard their interest and did not contest the suit properly as the certified copy of judgment and decree was not produced. It was further alleged that after passing of the judgment and decree suffered by respondent No.2, he was no more owner of the suit land. Therefore, the question of any agreement to sell the land in dispute by respondent No.2 does not arise. The appellants requested the respondents many times to admit their claim but they refused to do so. Hence the present suit. Upon notice, respondent No.1 filed his written statement taking various preliminary objections. It was further submitted that respondent No.3 Manjit Kaur is the mother of the appellants and was their natural guradian and was served in the suit in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 - Major Singh, father of the minors also contested the suit. Moreover, in execution proceedings, Manjit Kaur - respondent No.3 mother of the appellants filed objections on their behalf on 06.03.1999, which were dismissed and the appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 28.10.1999. Again objections were filed by Surjit Singh (guardian of the appellants through whom the present suit was filed) and those objections were also dismissed. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and the dismissal of the suit was prayed. On appreciation of evidence both the Courts below dismissed the suit filed by the appellants holding that the series of orders placed on record clearly shows that the appellants through their guardian (i.e. Respondent No.3), who was their mother, agitated the matter time and again regarding the judgment and decree in their favour and there was nothing on record to show that the interest of RSA No.2379 of 2010 -3- the appellants who were minors at that time was not safeguarded by her. Still not satisfied the plaintiffs have approached this court by way of this appeal. Though in the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the appellants has submitted as many as five substantial questions of law said to be arisen in the appeal however, only point raised before this Court by the appellants is that the Courts below have erred in upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 (Ex.P3 & P4) in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs in the present suit were minors at the time of institution of that suit and no Court guardian was appointed and therefore, the aforesaid judgment and decree was null and void being violative of provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. It is not in dispute that in the aforesaid suit, the minors were represented by Ms Manjeet Kaur, their mother who was the natural guardian. More over the present suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, has been filed by the appellants, who were minors at the time of filing of present suit through one Surjit Singh, their maternal uncle without getting permission of any Court. In this view of the matter, I find that the objection raised by the appellants is fully frivolous and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. No other point was argued. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. June 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE