Karnataka High Court
H D Hanumanthappa vs Mohammed Sab on 22 June, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (3) AIR KAR R 721
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA§S:l.Gfi!;'()i%__f.-V _
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF JUNE, .2e1Vaff: "
Barons
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE .A.N.V§_iSI'uGop;$.L.A' sown
QEGULAR FIR§'|' APm§As.. Ng.94:s'z:i;)oé
Sri H.D.Hanumanthappa, V "
S/0. Dasappa,
Aged about 7,2"ye'a--rs, 1
R/o. OPD- Ch"and?';'a<ia=ya« _M§-!_Is, 1;: '
P.B.Road,iRay.i'Mi'i'I''post;.s'j'.--.eAW, ;
Davana_g_ere~,V ~*
T' jvf_ 2 _ _ :APPELLANT
(By srii.e;s.shas:£iyy13h::y'sn§n,yy %
Sri M_.S._Moh.an. ARa_d-& "
Sri Anaanda Ra_o,A_dv«s;)
_____
.............._.....:_
' " --Sri*v.M'ohafhmed Sab, S/o. Fakruddin Sab,
Aé;;e.d«V..avbofL:-t.--vS9 yea rs,
";'Agricu!'t;Iri15t.
2. '1'ah1'ira1hji", W/0. Mohammed Basha Sab,
" _ Agezfabout 45 years.
bfiohammed Basha, S/0. Jamafuddin,
Aged about 64 years.
Aft are residents of
Thuruchaghatta vilfage,
Davanagere Taluk.
4. S.Lakshmi Reddy,
S/o.Shanivara Nagi Reddy,
Aged about 60 years, 2 ~-
Agricuiturist, R/o. Hosanayaka'nahaiIig_, .g
Davanagere Taiuk. '
(By Sri T.B.Kiran Kumar, Adv.-)___V
This RFA is filed under §éctiion_96 o'inC_P.C against the
judgment and decree datédi fG4';--J..2.1998"' 'passed in
O.S.No.189/1994 on ---,the_ :'._iie;_~of"'-the'~iAddi. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Davangere, dismissi-ng' :the_sLri_t.et_c. etc.
This appeai ._com3i'ngforhjearingzitvhis day, the Court
deiivered J
;ifhe*-- 'pi.ai'nti'Aff,_i-~D"ap"p-e.iiant, filed suit against the
defendants._--" respond.e"nt:s; for relief of declaring him as the
_ abso§iu'te~ owner'--.Vof_____pi.aint schedule property, permanent
.'irfr}unct.ionp res*t.raining the defendants from interfering with
inist-posses'si_o'n'and enjoyment of suit property and for a
directiongitofi the defendants by way of a mandatory
._in_iunctio'"n to make necessary appiications to the revenue
o€iic:'ais and get the katha of the schedule property
T 'restored in his name and for consequential fiiiefs.
' /,.
§'i§--esPciNt:fEmS--..g i
2. In a nutshell, the case of
follows:
The plaint schedule property
guntas of land in Sy.No.11/2-of Hdsaniaytakafiai.aallitviillagegi
Davanagere Taluk, belonged Vaddara
Dasanna, his grand 'father,7:jwhto.tl'.ci~--i.etcl':pr_ior to 1936. The
katha of the suit property the name of the
plaintiff, of famine and
non availa.bjlityV;o:fV vtildllagiieyllthe plaintiff moved out
and .Even then, he was visiting the
villageliantci was'looEi:_ng.:"after the cultivation of the suit
property. ll-'iecen'ti'y, when he wanted to raise loan for
. agr'icul'tura'dl~__operations against the security of the suit
ptoperty;..:_hef';e.pplied for copies of the records and came to
know sale deed dated 19.06.1940 has been
executved by his grandmother and uncle Akkamma and
l."'.Gi--riyappa, in favour of Aziz Sab and Fakruddin Sab.
__l3lefendants 1 to 4 have made applications to the revenue
officials stating that, they are the owners of the suit
property, having derived title from their vK:dors i.e., Aziz
. V/.
.3;
have traversed aii the material averments mad'e..__'_ii'n.l':th.e
piaint. In addition, it is stated that, defendant_N:o:g*2n_i_siitheub
wife of defendant No.3 and defendah:ty'i§io';_1
brother of defendant No.2,; _It hasiibeen tha't,.°the~~t'
propositus of the family of th'eV:.Vpia_intiff~w'as:.V'one;§ Sagarada
Dasanna, who had a He had a
wife DY name had two sons
by name 2Piaintiff and one
Thimmanna The suit property
beiortoeciv Th'§rrVirnanna.. Prior to 1935, the
said Dasanna 'andA:--2:his:_4s--ofln'Thimmanna, incurred debts with
Sheshappaaa-nd"Dafedar Hanuma Nayaka. With a view to
Adi'Schz§-§t_;e:'d'th_e saidxudebts, Dasanna and his son Thimmanna
uncie of piaintiff, nameiy, Dasanna and
Céi--r._iyappa,uZmortgaged an extent of 10 acres 24 guntas of
yylandiiinoisy. No.11 and an extent of 29 acres 5 guntas in
xi'-..V'Sy..?5No.82, in favour of one Venkappa, by means of a
V. ._..simpie mortgage. The piaintiff and his brother Thimmanna
along with their uncle Giriyappa, soid an extent of 1 acre
26 guntas in re-survey No.11/2 in favour of Aziz sab and
r.'
his brother Fakruddin Sab for consideration__§of"RsV;--$Cl{},{f4;_
The plaintiff and his brother Thimgmanna_~w'ere]rn'i'nors
hence their paternal grandmother;--Al};k4aernrna'-
guardian for them" and executeddthé cor:y'ey;a:nce
The executants sold the withlllamlgew tovfidischarge
the debt owed to others who had
obtained decrees in o_.sfL[Neeel_V3f.jg573oaifé9~gland 579/38--39.
The Fakruddin Sab,
were put Viigllwlacres and 28 guntas of
land ingbeyacefulwpossession and enjoyment
of "and Fakruddin Sab got divided
their land'ul'ricVlu'd'ing No.11 and that, Aziz Sab got 5
. V. acres guntas Fakruddin Sab got 5 acres 34 guntas.
along with his sons Basha Sab, Abdul
l~la.rnidV__.S~a'b)and Nazeer Sab, purchased 5 acres 34 guntas
fromzfitzlz Sab and others for consideration of Rs.2,000/---
x"'--.gan.d_'f.--he was put in actual possession of the land, the katha
which was mutated in his name and that, he is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
Defendant 2 purchased an extent of 20 glfitas of land in
vff
Sy. No.11/2 under a sale deed dated
by defendant 1 and his brother Rah_a~a'na.t:j~..A'i'i;
consideration of Rs.2,000/~.
Fakruddin Sab got to theirshare, t'i*.e°iand
and the iast two sons 1vi\io.1 and
Rahamat Aii got to _shar_e. bearing Sy. "No.
11. 20 guntas ofvA_i.a.n'ci:~.. purchased by
defendant and his brother
Rahamat reispiect of the said item of
the _' revenue registers and
defend'an__t:"No.2~..is cultivating the said property.
E>efen--.dant'p'urchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas
f of"'ii'and"'iin"i'Sy. No&.ii"under a saie deed dated 04.10.1980
Aii for consideration of Rs.10,000/~
and the-kautha has been transferred in his name and he has
been ..enj:'oying the said property as the owner thereof. The
purchased by defendant No.2 and retained by
_,,_._defendant No.1, are contiguous. Neither the plaintiff nor
his predecessors had entered the suit iands, on and after
the execution of the sale deed dated 336.1940. They
9:
have improved the property, which is now valuable and an
irrigated land, on account of which, the plairiti:f;f'r._»has
instituted the suit, which is frivolous. They__ra'i'sied
limitation and also objections with regard...to,usuvffiiciiency_'of..
Court fee. Alternatively, it wascla.i.med'°--_that,~--.t'heyyhave
perfected their title to; the suit"' property,'
continuously enjoyed the saum=e'gA'fo_r mor.e,_'V:than:'f,12 years,
without any obstructio,n"'%hy plaintiff.
4. Based on,th"e--55lead.ings,.".th.e:'.v'frial Court raised
the fol.lowi'ngV'i'ss'ues~:
. _i) Wlhether'=the'plaintiff proves his title to the suit
schedule property?
iii) eiwriethner' he further proves his lawful
'possession over the suit schedule property on
. V ._ % ~ 'l't,hé..date of the suit?
'wilether he further proves interference or
V. . i'--'obstruction by the defendant as alleged?
iv) "V " Whether he is entitled for declaration and
" _ 1 injunction sought for?
v) Whether he is entitled for mandatory injunction
to the revenue officials for restoring his name
in the revenue records as claimed?
vi) To what reliefs the parties are entitled?
5. During trial, plaintiff deposed as PW-1. Exs.P1
to P7 were marked, 3"' defendant deposias DW--1. 4"'
r.'
defendant deposed as DW-2. Exs.D1 to D7
After appreciation of the evidence,mlearne_d~' ha4s'*~ .
heid that, the piaintiff has faifedtto Wei'hisrtataiehesham
possession and enjoyment of-t_he suit fbropertytéiaind
answered issues 1 to 5 in theuunegative""hasvvfdismissed
the suit. The saidA..,_._j%i--1dg'me--nt" "~a_n.ti"t.,decree has been
questioned in this appeal..:._ A
6. "S_ht_ish.an, learned advocate
appearing for.fhthéfiapp'e,iIa.nt, 'rei~terating the case put forth
in theV'*Triai Cou'r't,-~.xZeh,e%rr1.e'r'it'iy' contended that, the iearned
Triai Jud§e__has fa_p'pte'ciated the case of the piaintiff in
theitcorrect 'p"e'rs,n.e.ctvive and that, the suit has been
*di's:fnis--s_ed,"..ohwhoiiy erroneous view of the matter and
iience, intejrfeirence is calied for.
Sri T.B.Kiran Kurnar, iearned counsei for the
V."V'--.,resp:rJndents, on the other hand, contended that, the Triai
_,._Court has omitted to frame an issue reiating to bar of
limitation, though there is specific pfea raised in the
written statement. He submitted that, age parties have
Z' _
10
understood each other's case and have.:'_:"'plarI:e«d__f.
evidence on record of the Trial Court, whichV-i.sjsuffici«ent,,_to.
enable this Court to pronounize
settling the issue and the omi.ssionV"to'l'rame"th;ev,said:issue,':>
appears to be only on accouvlntof.Vipnadvertencev; Learned
counsel submitted that,':«--ln' under R 24 of
O 41 CPC, issue relati.n_g"_t.o be raised and
the case counsel referred
to the VEx.P1 which shows the
entry:.:V"reVlatinqV the sale deed dated
19.o6,fi1<_=i4o'by of the plaintiff i.e., the sale
deed at has remained unchallenged. It was
contended'l'..t'hat,évth'e« plaintiff has failed to produce any
vptroof of his claim that, he is in possession and
eirl-3Zoyn3en,t,i'.oAf the suit property, which is agricultural land.
if thiefiplaintiff were to be in possession of the suit
u"V'.,,prop.-erty, he could have produced the RTC or examined
.i:,'_,v___\5s:itnesses. It is contended that, the plaintiff cannot
depend upon the alleged weakness of the defence, but has
to estabiish his case, independently of the case of the
./.',
11
defendants. According to the iearned counsel.,:'_:'t'h'e..'_oE.a_iin.ti_ff
has faiied to prove his case and hence,
justified in dismissing the suit.
8. I have perused'--v.,the} record;--._:jThe"Vfo'iiowing"
points arise for determination:''' --.
(i) Whether the is biaiiiirfgduby limitation?
(ii) _Wh.ether"ti'i'e":eVidenceV'.ptaced on record has
apiéiec-area? by the Triai
,{-iii) aflny**vi»»»- interference with the
V'ini.pVug_n'ed""judgment and decree is caiied
.9,'«.5Viv.i,A:"B.S.Shashi Bhushan, firstly, contended that,
'th.o--u'ghV'iéivrnitation was raised as a piea in the written
L sta44tem"'e.nt,4' the same was not pressed by the defendants
Aandheince, the Trial Court did not frame specific issue
Aigeigarding the bar of iimitation. Secondly, in the absence
V "of proper pieading reiating to iimitation, particuiariy when
the question of iimitation is a mixed question of iaw and
i /.
12
fact, it cannot be said that the suit is barred _
Lastly, the bar of limitation cannot be deci~d~e.df:for'-h~t:hey firistw
time in appeai, since theissue re_gard.i.ng 4ii.mita'tioii':i1av:ing
not been raised, the piaintif.f'di_d not¥h_a'i:i
iead evidence and if the issuehhhVr'e«l:atinV'g of iirhitation is
required to be judgment and
decree may be set asideand to the Trial
Court, to the to the bar of
limitation, if ainy», to""i-he"siLii:..
in the above contentions. The
defendanhts.,__hhii:. theihri._vi/irritten statement have specificaliy
coV_rttendhedVv%that,"th_e__suit is barred by time. It has aiso
' been -avverr'e:dv._that, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be
'aii.oi:ved'ihri,j--:la:vvh as he" siept over the matter for over 5
Q decades", It was averred that, the piaintiff nor his
V' ore-decessors have ever set their feet in the suit iand, since
date of saie deed dated 19.6.1940.
k
/, .
13
10.1 The learned Triai Judge has not taken noti.ce of
83(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for
which reads as follows:
"s.3 Bar of limitation:-T__(1):...4,Sfu5ject.'
provisions contained. in V4S.e'c"ttons to"
(inclusive), every in"st1_tuted',_,"fappeal
preferred, and ap;3lipC_E::1V't':iti_n=.__made~nafte? the
prescribed peric5..Cif':%«~sh:'_a:li ,V.he'4:j_is_rnissed, although
limitation has not beenl'Vset'Vup..a's.xfa.defence.''
" sjéttled that,flS.3(1) of the Act, casts a
duty u'pon-- the the suit or appeal or an
app_lication",~ rna'r.--ieA'aft'er the prescribed period, although,
|irnit'at,i"on,'~-igs not 's"é't"up as a defence.
«-
T' " Inthe instant case, as already noticed, such a
de-f_en<;_ehaTsAbeen set up in the written statement. It is no
ndoubltvvtsiue that, no distinct issue was framed in that regard
--..V'b--\,r the Trial Court. In view of the specific defence taken, it
'h V. .__.§/vas the duty of the learned Trial Judge to have raised a
distinct issue with regard to bar of limitation. Issue
«<.'.'
14
relating to limitation is a jurisdictional issu_elV_:'a'nd~»'.'g-o_é:e.._.to
the root of the matter. The mandate of-'S;31:of
that, it is the duty of the court_--to' udis'm'iss"'a[fniyy "13-%i_JAit
instituted after the prescribedvl'A._period='Io.f~.,.,,i,iVm.i3tatoionV:*
irrespective of the fact that, been set up
as a defence. If barred by law of
limitation, a Court has. the same
even if plea of limitation.
In the oi; LAND AND BUILDING
CORl3;'jC)'it/'-l\"'i'I'L'.:,\5i§»lV BANERJEE - A13 1964
SC 1 it ;
, _," S3 "of thelimitation enjoins a Court to dismiss any
suit insti--tut_ed,. appeal preferred and appiication
V' mad"e.., after "" the period of limitation 'prescribed
.._ th'ere,for;_: by Schedule I, irrespective of the fact
whyether jthe opponent had set up the plea of
A limitation or not. It is the duty of the Court not to
pvrocejed with the application if it is made beyond the
period of limitation prescribed. The Court had no
"choice and if in construing the necessary provisions
of the limitation Act or in determining which
provisions of the limitation Act applies, the
subordinate Court comes to an erroneous decision, it
is open to the Court in revision to interfere with that
conclusion as that conclusion ied the Court to
assume or not to assume the jurisdiction to proceed
with the determination of that matter."
2
15
12. Plaintiff admits the execution ofe.the"sél'e..de.e'd..,
dated 19.6.1940 by Akkamma and Giriya'p'p'a':in"fa\('our.,.of*~.
Aziz Sab and Fakruddin Sab. PW_--1adrnitted'"that"'ii,he
katha of the suit prope»rty__. isV"in'"the
defendants. He has stated know of the
fact of sale of the._._"':suei§.'_':d favour of the
defendants, when he,u_ias::~of'V-.tAh.e to 12 years.
According thati knowiedge of the
fact that, filed. He has deposed
that, that he has the right in the
propert'y,_ he filed On the date plaintiff - PW~--1
deposed i.e., v3'1'.'1'O.J.l99é, he has stated that, his age is 71
. yearis. yjrhat.rneans,the plaintiff must have attained age of
about 1948. The suit has been filed on
7.1.1.19.9~4.elAif.'ef., after about 40 years of the removal of the legai disléibility.
if 13. Suits relating to declaration fall within Part III "of the Schedule to the Act, which has within it, Articles 56 to 58. The period of limitation prescribed with regard to ./ ,_,.
16 the suits relating to decrees and instruments is put under Part IV of the Schedule to the Act, which has vgithgin it, Articles 59 and 60. Article 60 is with regard aside a transfer of property made by th,el'g.uar[cii~anniofrayvl ward and the period of iirnitaticghn years,-corrinjenycirag it from the time when the ward attairns"majority.. " " A
14. In the case of r5Ri;§'M.,,sING.HiANr:» OTHERS vs. BIRBAL AND (ft-7l.flF:'lER;?l,:$ -;.%l1':t_'«'e.iOo6 sc 3608, it was held is.ta.V' presuihption that a registered document is Vjvéfi-igjiily."executed and therefore, prima facie would be«~.yiai.idVV'in Vlia_w.=.:_"--~The onus of proof, thus, would be onfia person w"ho...l_e,avds evidence to rebut the presumption. ' ,,'It...has"b:eenvfurther held that, limitation is a Statute of *.r.epos'éA-'A'.V'v's1'j_itlwsordinarily bars a remedy, but does not eiltinguish a right. The only exception to the said rule is to it be.._found in S.2"£" of the Act, which provides that at the Atdetermination of the period prescribed thereby, iimited to H any person for instituting a suit for possession of any \.
2' 17 property, his right to such property shail be It has been further held therein as follows:
"29. If a deed was executed byLthe*..piairitifi'he ' was a minor and it was void;=he' had .optione file, a suit to get the p_foperty.V' Cdnveyed thereunder. He cou1d____e'ithe1ffiIe.thesuit? within 12 years of the 'deed or % years of attaining maioritv. Here, plaiht'iff__.dlid,AAhot: either sue within 12 Vea1fs"o_f thewdeeid o1*«.iwiti1i-nAw..3 years of attaining H1ai9fi._ty,:5'i"ITl'1efe@;;eV,V the}.suit'Was rightly held to be Court.
(Emphasis supplied)
15."-» is',-a w_elE""settled principle of law that a void dlocurnenrty is n'o'i""required to be avoided, whereas, a V ..4docu_ment must be. S.16 of the Contract Act "p_rovide.s'et?'r}a:t, any transaction which is an outcome of any undtee";misrepresentation, coercion or fraud, shall be .,yo"i'dable. If, however, a document is prima facie vaiid, a ;presumption arises in regard to its genuineness.
16. In the plaint, it has been averred that a sale deed dated 19.06.1940 is said to have been executed in \ 18 favour of Aziz Sab and Fakruddin Sab, sons by Akkamma and Giriyappa. It has that the execution of document Di./:.«gtije'~_gsaiAd not bind the plaintiff. Ex:.P1 is'the~inde)r7--lof"land'; vvhifchg shows the sale of the suit"Vp»:coperty i'n.V.fav-ourilipffwthe Azia Sab and Fakruddin of the sale deed which behalf of the plaintiff being minors, by their and uncle .'1o._curnents and the averments in the pl'a_in't,V the sale of suit property belongingu'to.V_the" plaintiff and his brother has taken place . .wduringf their minority, by their guardians. From the Viniithe plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff, for a=i.l_ int_entVl'a'nd purport, prayed for setting aside the deed of AA sale -v--._.é:Ex.D2. There is absolutely no record showing the u".,.V"p.o.'s'session and enjoyment of the suit property -- an Héagricultural land by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property and had cultivated the same, there would have been entrie in the revenue 19 records. The plaintiff couid have also produced"k:3Vn.day_a'r:filv payment receipts. He has not chosen-~to,~prodtlcege even, reyenue records in support of his poissessiionlor enjioyrhent ' of the suit property. The .a'd-missioniof that, he came to know of saie of suit property when he was of the and he being a minor, couid _not ta,ke,:'_ste'pVs,:,,, he had the knowledge the suit property under .:hei_'h.ad:'iegaldisability to institute a suit prescribed period is reckovvned,' he ~.cou'ldi:_4iiay'e""'instituted the suit within the peri*o.d,Apresc.ri'Abed' afterfthe disability has ceased as would . ,oVth«erwise"l'e..havebeen allowed from the time specified third column of the Schedule to the Act.
A*:t.6Q.~i~n,vi'Sclhedule to the Act is applicable to the instant A, case" since the plaintiff is virtually seeking the setting aside all-.,'ofr3transfer of property made under Ex.D2, by his ___§guardians. The prescribed period being 3 years on the ward attaining majority, the plaintiff ought to have instituted the suit before the expiry of tikgze years period.
-/3 20 According to Sri Shashi Bhushan, the date_of'b'i'rt'n:--:of-'.th'eVg plaintiff is 23.05.1920. If thatwbe so,--"he'.:'i}as'i:attainVet§i\E.,,,., majority on 23.05.1938. The siii~téf'has3._1been"'Vfi'il-ed'i»1._on 07.11.1994 i.e., after more than-..'four plaintiff has not either sued execution of Ex.D2 or within 3 of7_attaini"n.g».,rnajority --- removal of iegal disability. Henc.e;..:'_t~he'V..si.iit"iés._hop'e'lessly barred by time.
Rg: i=-;»_i.__t"N.é.(;li--i:g__:..g 9. . ThozighVit«i.s"un..:-iecessary to record any finding on other'lissLi'es_i;nyilelwlwof the finding recorded on point NQ'}'3{.i);T_.,:Ah3ving "h'ea----rd~the learned counsei on both sides with V g.re'g~agrd.,_t:o themerits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to 'record with regard to the contention that there is errorland illegality committed by the Trial Court in the if ifnatter of appreciation of evidence.
18. Ex.P1 is the index of the land in respect of the suit property. It shows the sale transaction relating to suit property having taken place on 28.02.1960, 08.11.1965, 21 29.05.1940 and 11.04.1973. Said docume.n:t"'ais_'0----..s.ho_i}vsv that there was mortgage of the property"
Venkappa, S/o Ujjain Somannia fo-raga Said document also shows-..__thatV"1t_he property has been mutated .nam2e' plaintiff and upon the sale under defied the katha having been mutated...E:n:--..ttieVAA i.e., M.R. No.12 of" the sale deed dated 19.06.19::._0 of the piaintiff and his + mother Akkamma and uncIezAEiVri'yfi;PE3a_.«i»n'A'fa:'vo_u"r<'of Aziz Sab and Fakruddin Sab. Ex.:.D«2 gAwheVri..,0eru"sed, indicates that the property was sold yt0o"«pa3,}'1tfieadecreeiiiiamount in 05. Nos. 579/38-39 and corroborates to the entry in the rerr1ar_I<s_cfoiumn of Ex.P1. There is virtuaiiy no cross- Agexanoination with regard to Ex.D2 in favour of the vendors 'of the defendants. Thus, the due execution of sale of the ___5suit property (Ex.D2) by the guardians of the plaintiff in favour of the vendors of the defendants has remained unchaiienged. In view of the non chijenge to the said /f 22 alienation and the bar of limitation, the over the suit property has extiMng'uishe'd"'in:,,'gvi'ewv'_'of=the»_ operation of S.27 of the Act.
19. As already the're_"
evidence in SuDp0rt"~.9f thé"'pl'aih'fi'r,fs clair'n,'"except the interested testimonyfd that he is in possession and; ":DF0D€l'tY- 0" the other produced Exs.D3 and D4 -
RTC the receipt patta book and to show that they are in possession,andfre-nioynient of the suit property. Hence, the p_|~aintiff'sKsuit""for...._permanent injunction has rightly been ' ,,,negatvi.ved'_'by'the Trial Court. regard to the prayer for mandatory ninjunzction to direct the revenue officials to restore the xi'?-,,Vi<ath'a of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, in view the sale of the suit property by the guardians of the plaintiff on 19.06.1940, in favour of the vendors of the defendants and the subsequent sale of the suit property in E/.
.r 23 favour of the defendants, the prayer of the;'p'ia'i.iVit.i'f?'~l' misconceived and has been rightly negativ.ed. "Trial"? Cou rt.
21. -Even upon re-app:-e_ciati6nv.'"of the.v*'"eviv't1enc'é; ibnwf record, the one and the oniy cp'ncl'usions't-hpat'Vcan'f§foViiow is that the piaintiff has tit) and his suit has to fail. ,T he jL:d.grne.nt'v._pf::Lth'e~v?T'riVa_i---'Court is neither perverse nqr interference, since it is basedjv er the evidence on the recorciizancit law to the estabiished facts. A it it ..f"In. the-» .re's't11|t,.'V' the appeal fails and shai! stand Sd/3 EUDGE . K537' sac*