RSA No.5277 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5277 of 2003 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Maha Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Nasib Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondents for possession of the suit land was decreed without costs. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was owner of agricultural land measuring 77 Kanals 7 marlas being 1/3rd share in total land of 232 Kanals 3 marlas situated in village Jundala Tehsil and Distt. Karnal. It is alleged that the aforesaid suit land was sold by somebody representing to be Nasib Singh son of Mohinder Singh on 19.8.1980 in favour of one Surinder Kaur whereas the plaintiff was minor on that date as his date of birth is 26.3.1969. It is further averred that defendant No.1 thereafter sold 9 Kanals 7 marlas of agricultural land to defendant-appellants vide registered sale deed dated 19.8.1980 for a consideration of Rs.17,823/-. Defendant No.1 also sold agricultural land out of the remaining land as mentioned in the plaint to other defendants. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 was not bona fide purchaser so he could not pass any title to any subsequent purchaser. It is further alleged RSA No.5277 of 2003 2 that the possession of the defendants over the suit land is illegal and unauthorized without any right and authority. Sale in favour of other defendants including the appellants are null and void and have got no value in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the sale made by or on behalf of minor without obtaining permission from the Court is nullity and is void ab initio and has no force in the eyes of law. The plaintiff attained majority on 25.3.1987 and thereafter came to know about the alleged sale. He approached the defendants and requested them to admit his claim and return the possession of the land to him. However, the defendants are appellants. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by defendant No.2. Defendants No.3 to 7 filed their separate written statement. Defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. Apart from other pleas, it was submitted that the appellants are bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute from defendant No.1 who was recorded as owner in possession of the land in dispute in all the revenue record. It was further alleged that title of respondent No.1 was perfectly legal, authorized and there was no defect in the same and she had every right to sell the same as she herself was a bona fide purchaser and sold it as absolute owner to the defendant-appellants who are also bona fide purchaser. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was not minor at the time of the sale deed and he was not the owner thereof and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the title of defendant No. 11 over the property in dispute was defective and illegal ? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff RSA No.5277 of 2003 3 is entitled to the possession of suit land as alleged ? OPP. (3) Whether the defendant No. 1 is a bonafide purchaser and for consideration ? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiff has got no local standi to file and maintain the suit ? OPD. (5) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct ? OPD. (7) Relief.” The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided issue Nos.1, 4 and 6 jointly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants holding that the impugned sale deed dated 19.8.1980 (Ex.PW2/A) was void ab initio because the property in dispute belong to a Hindu minor. A transaction of sale or purchase of property of minor does not confer any right or title thereon and even subsequent transfer of such property cannot pass a good title. Issue No.5 was not pressed by the defendants. Issue No.3 was also decided against the defendants and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed without costs. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the present appeal in this Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued RSA No.5277 of 2003 4 that the Courts below have overlooked the entire evidence and gave contrary findings without going into the evidence on record. He has further argued that it has been proved on record that the appellants are bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute as before the execution of sale deed in their favour they have made enquiries of the revenue record in which the name of defendant No.1 was recorded as owner and therefore, they being ostensible owner of the land in dispute, sale in their favour is protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the Courts below and has argued that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal as the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was minor on the date of alleged sale deed dated 19.8.1980 in favour of Surinder Kaur- defendant No.1 who has sold the suit land to the present appellants by sale deed dated 19.8.1980 and thus, she cannot pass the better title than she had with herself. Since the alleged sale deed dated 19.8.1980 does not confer any title or right in the favour of the appellants, they cannot claim themselves to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. There is an overwhelming evidence on record of the case to establish that the date of birth of the plaintiff-respondent is 26.3.1969 and therefore, at the time of alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1980, the plaintiff-respondent was a minor. It is well settled that the sale of a property of a Hindu minor is altogether void transaction and the purchaser would acquire no right, title or interest from the minor though such purchases. Even, the learned counsel for the RSA No.5277 of 2003 5 appellants was unable to challenge the above finding of fact and the settled proposition of law aforesaid. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that they are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice is also liable to be rejected. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that they had made enquiries from the revenue record before purchasing the land in dispute from Surinder Kaur, is of no help to them because it is a settled principle of law that the sale on behalf of minor is void and a nullity and has no existence in the eyes of law. Thus, no title has passed in favour of vendor of appellants on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 19.8.1980 executed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. As no valid title has passed in favour of Surinder Kaur, she cannot pass any better title to the appellants than what she had. The subsequent sale deed in favour of the appellants by Surinder Kaur will not confer any title in them and such sales cannot be protected under the provisions of law under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 4, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE