- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 18.01.2005 (Annexure -1), passed by the Munsif, First, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 34 of 2001, whereby the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleading one Falu Mahto as a party -defendant in the suit, was rejected. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit for declaration and title and for permanent injunction, was filed by the present plaintiff against the defendants, namely, the present Respondents. While the plaintiff had claimed that the disputed lands were purchased by the plaintiff from the co -sharers of one Falu Mahto in the year 1958, the defendants had raised a plea that they had purchased the disputed lands from Falu Mahto on 17th March, 1970. The controversy which arose from the pleadings of the defendants was that the earlier transaction of sale indulged by the plaintiff with the co -sharers of Falu Mahto, was illegal as because on the date of sale, Falu Mahto was a minor and he could not possibly have given a legal consent for the sale of his share of the properties and it was only when Falu Mahto had attained the age of majority that the defendants had purchased the disputed suit property from him.
(3.) THE plaintiff on the other hand claimed that on the date when they had obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property, Falu Mahto had already attained the age of majority.;