- (1.) Plaintiff Balwinder Singh who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court has filed this second appeal. Defendant No. 3 Gurcharan Singh (since deceased and represented by legal representatives) was father of plaintiff appellant Balwinder Singh. Defendant No. 3 filed application on 28.7.1990 under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) for permission to sell 32 kanals 8 marlas land of the plaintiff who was then minor. Learned Guardian Judge vide order dated 19.3.1991 granted permission to defendant No. 3 to sell the said land subject to conditions mentioned in the order which are reproduced hereunder:- i) that the proposed sale shall not be made at a price less than Rs. 30,000/- per killa; ii) that the sale shall be made within 3 months from today; iii) the sale proceeds shall immediately be deposited in the name of Balwinder Singh minor in some scheduled bank in the fixed deposit for a period of 7 years and shall not be withdrawn except for prior permission of the Guardian Judge; and iv) the applicant shall furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- undertaking to indemnify the minor for any loss occasioned to him.
(2.) Pursuant thereto, defendant No. 3 sold suit land measuring 31 kanals 18 marlas to defendants No. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 14.5.1991.
(3.) Plaintiff in the suit has challenged the aforesaid sale deed dated 14.5.1991 as well as consequent mutation No. 2706 dated 15.6.1991 alleging that the sale was not for the benefit of the plaintiff and conditions of order dated 19.3.1991 of the Guardian Judge were not complied with because sale consideration was not deposited in bank in the name of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that defendant No. 3-father of the plaintiff was not his guardian because the plaintiff was living with his mother who was his guardian. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit land from defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 3 after initially appearing in person did not appear thereafter and was proceeded against exparte. Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and controverted all averments made by the plaintiff to challenge the impugned sale deed and mutation. Various other objections were also raised. Defendants No. 1 and 2 also claimed to be bonafide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration.;