AJIT SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who lost their cause before both the courts below, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by Shri J.K. Sud, H.C.S., Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa, dated 6.2.1979, dismissing their suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession in equal share of the land, fully described in the head note of the plaint, which judgment and decree has since been upheld in an appeal preferred by them by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, on 21.3.1982.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners in possession in equal shares of 160/2014 share of agricultural land measuring 10 kanals and 14 marlas and similarly owners in possession in equal shares of 143/427 share of land measuring 21 kanals and 7 marlas, situated in village Rania, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The land was purchased through registered sale deeds dated 24.8.1962 and 27.1.1966, Exs. P-4 and P-5, respectively. Mohinder Singh, defendant, brought a suit in the year 1972 contending that he was owner in possession of 160/2014 share and the plaintiffs together in equal shares were owners in possession of 160/2014 share. Similarly, he averred that he was owner in possession of 143/427 share and the plaintiffs in equal shares were owners in possession of 284/427 share. Said suit was decreed by learned Subordinate Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.1972. Mohinder Singh brought yet another suit in the year 1973 wherein, it was averred that he was owner in possession of 414/2014 share of the land and also that he was owner of 143/427 share of another parcel of land. This suit was also decreed on admission by learned Subordinate Judge vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.1973. These both judgments were styled by the plaintiffs to be against the facts and law and as such null and void and infective against the rights of the plaintiffs. One ground that was pressed in seeking setting aside of the judgments and decrees, referred to above, was that Dayal Singh, plaintiff, was minor at the time when the decrees were passed and was not properly sued. There were other ground also challenging the decrees but the surviving one is only with regard to Dayal Singh being a minor at the time the decrees were passed. Respective pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(3.) THE observations made by learned first appellate court, as extracted above, in my view, are enough to hold that it could not be proved that Dayal Singh was minor at the time decrees were passed. That apart, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others, AIR 1965 SC 282 that "in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. The Court cannot ignore this fact while assessing the value of the entry and it would be improper for the court to base any conclusion on the basis of the entry, when it is alleged that the entry was made upon false information supplied with the above motive."