Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THE present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff to the suit. He had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the land measuring 7 kanals 15 marlas, details and description whereof have been given in head note of the plaint. It was further stated that sale deed No. 5681 dated 15.12.1997 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is liable to be set aside being wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon rights of the plaintiff.
(2.) A short controversy, which was raised in the suit, was that on the day when the sale deed No. 5681 dated 15.12.1997 was executed, the plaintiff was minor and hence, he was not competent to execute the same. The trial Court, after completion of pleadings, framing of issues and considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that on the day when sale deed No. 5681 dated 15.12.1997 was executed, the plaintiff indeed was minor and accordingly it was set aside. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants to the suit had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court held that earlier, on the same issue as to whether on the day when the sale deed No. 5681 dated 15.12.1997 was executed the plaintiff was major or minor, in another civil litigation it was determined that the plaintiff, on the day when the above said sale deed was executed, was major. This finding was upheld by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2834 of 2008 titled as "Ranbir Singh v. Baldev Raj and Others". It will be apposite here to reproduce paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 28.9.2010, passed by the lower Appellate Court: 11. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken together by the learned lower Court and decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that he was born on 8.12.1980 by placing heavy reliance on birth certificate Ex.P2. In present appeal as well, issues 1 and 2 are being taken together for decision, as these are inter linked and interconnected. According to plaintiff, he was born on 8.12.1980 and therefore, he was minor at the time of execution and registration of sale deed dated 15.12.1997 Ex.P1 regarding the land in dispute in favour of defendant No.1. This is seriously disputed by the defendants and it is claimed that he was major on 15.12.1997. The learned lower Court by placing heavy reliance on birth certificate Ex.P2 has held that plaintiff was born on 8.12.1980. The dispute with regard to exact date of birth of plaintiff has been put at rest by the Hon'ble High Court in judgment dated 25.8.2010 passed in Regular Second Appeal (RSA) No. 2834 of 2008 titled as "Ranbir Singh Versus Baldev Raj etc." (copy of judgment dated 25.8.2010 is available on the record of present appeal), wherein, it has been clearly held that plaintiff was born on 10.7.1979 and birth certificate Ex.P2 showing the date of birth of plaintiff as 8.12.1980 has been specifically rejected. The affidavit Mark DA given by plaintiff himself claims that he was born on 10.7.1979. In these circumstances, it is held that plaintiff was born on 10.7.1979 by rejecting birth certificate Ex.P2, which shows that he was born on 8.12.1980. Once that is so, the plaintiff was more than 18 years of age i.e. major on the date of execution and registration of sale deed dated 15.12.1997 Ex.P1 regarding the land in dispute. Thus, main ground of plaintiff challenging sale deed dated 15.12.1997 Ex.P1 regarding the land in dispute fails. The other ground taken by the plaintiff that fraud and misrepresentation was played upon him at the time of execution and registration of sale deed dated 15.12.1997 Ex.P1 s not substantiated on the record by any evidence led by him. Resultantly, findings recorded by the learned lower Court under issues 1 and 2 stand reversed, which are decided against the plaintiff Learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly submitted that in another litigation which has attained finality upto Hon'ble the Apex Court, it was held that on the day when sale deed No. 5681 was executed, the plaintiff was major. That being so, the sale deed, executed by the plaintiff, suffers from no infirmity. However, learned counsel submits that after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, a Review Petition has been filed in Hon'ble the Apex Court. Needless to say that if, in the Review Application, it is held that on the day when sale deed No. 5681 dated 15.12.1997 was executed, the plaintiff was minor, the appellant will be entitled to approach this Court to say that the uniformity be adhered to regarding the question as to whether on a particular day, the plaintiff was major or minor.
(3.) IN these circumstances, no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised for consideration of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.;