JUDGEMENT
S. B. Sinha, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Whether the provision of Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in a suit filed for setting aside a Deed of Sale, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Civil Second Appeal No.8 of 1998.
(3.)Respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration and partition of the land consisting of 19 bighas and 12 biswas claiming himself to be a co-sharer with the defendant. One Mihilal was the owner of the suit land comprising of different khasra numbers, situate in village Akhoda, in the District of Bhind. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 alleging that his father Chhedilal had a share therein in addition to owner of another land in khasra No.516, measuring 6 biswas. Chhedilal died in the year 1950. His wife also died soon thereafter. At the time of the death of his father, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was a minor. He started living with appellant No.4-Lal Bihari. He, allegedly, executed a deed of sale on 1.1.1961 in respect of khasra No.516 measuring 6 biswas to Babu Singh and Tek Singh for a consideration of Rs.7,000/-. His age in the Sale Deed was shown to be 26 years. Only on 17-8-1979, he, allegedly, gathered the information that the land under khasra No.516 was purported to have been sold by him to the aforementioned persons. He, thereafter, filed the suit on 24-9-1979. The appellant herein pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The said suit of the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 29-4-1995 holding that the suit was barred by limitation. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff. The 1st Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 11-12-1997, held that the said Deed of Sale was got executed by playing fraud on the plaintiff who was a minor at the relevant point of time and the said Deed of Sale, thus, being void ab initio, the limitation of three years from the date of attaining of majority, as is provided for in Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be applicable in the instant case. A second appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 2-9-2002.