Gursaran Das Sahgal, J. - (1.) This application in revision has been filed by one of the defendants to a suit for the specific performance of a contract of sale and also for possession. The applicant and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a contract of sale of certain agricultural property in favour of opposite -party No. 1. Subsequently, however, they executed a sale -deed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. In the circumstances, opposite -party No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale against the applicant and opposite -parties Nos. 2 to 5. In the plaint as originally filed opposite party No. 1 claimed that he had been put in possession also of the property and only a sale -deed remained to be executed by the applicant and opposite -party No. 2 but they executed in favour of Opposite -parties Nos. 3 to 5, after that contract in favour of opposite -party No. 1. Later on, however, a prayer was added in the alternative to the effect that in case the plaintiff -opposite -party No. 1 was not found in possession, possession be also delivered to him of the property in question.
(2.) Two preliminary points were raised before the learned trial Judge. The first was as to whether the property being agricultural property could a suit for possession be filed in the Civil Court where it had been filed? The Second point was that the defendant -opposite -party No. 2 being a minor on the date of the alleged contract of sale, tie contract could not be enforced as against him. Both the points were decided by the learned Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed, against the defendants who raised them and it is in these circumstances that one of the defendants has come up in revision before this Court.
(3.) So far as the question whether defendant No. 2 (Opposite -party No. 2 in this revision) was a minor on the date of the alleged contract of sale, is concerned, the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide it one way or the other and in deciding that he was not a minor he has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor refused to exercise jurisdiction which he had and under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure no revision is maintainable against that finding.;