- (1.) These appeals are directed against the judgements and decrees dated 1.4.1999 and 13.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RFAs Nos. 269 of 1993 and 127 of 1994 respectively whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred by the first respondent herein were allowed.
(2.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as under: The property in dispute admittedly belonged to one Gheru. He was said to be deaf and dumb. On or about 28.8.1962, he allegedly executed a power of attorney in favour of his wife Sobhi. Acting on or on the basis of the said power of attorney, Sobhi executed several deeds of sale in favour of various persons. Kimtu, the original plaintiff (Respondent 1 herein) is the daughter of Gheru. Several suits were filed by Gheru or Kimtu questioning the legality or validity of the said power of attorney and consequently the diverse deeds of sale executed by Sobhi in favour of the vendees. Some of the suits were decreed. So far as the present suit filed by Kimtu is concerned, the same came to be dismissed by the trial court, inter alia, holding that Gheru was not legally disabled to execute the power of attorneys. The said judgement and decree of the trial court was affirmed by the first appellate court.
(3.) The High Court in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff- respondent, formulated the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether once a person is held to be an idiot or lunatic, he can be allowed to deal with his property by himself or through appointment of any agent 2. Whether in view of sec. 6 of the Limitation Act, limitation can start running against an idiot or lunatic before he becomes sane and in case he dies as an idiot or lunatic, the suit can be said to be barred by limitation if the same is filed within three years of his death by his successors - For the reasons stated hereinafter, it is not necessary to deal with the said purported questions of law.;