Naro vs Harbans Lal And Anr. on 26 February, 1962
Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on Risaldar Ram Singh v. Labh Singh, AIR 1954 Punj 119, where a learned Single Judge expressed the view that where persons who would be interested in challenging an alienation agree to it, that would be presumptive proof which if not rebutted by contrary proof would validate the transaction as a proper and right one and this is when necessity is not proved aliunde nor is there proof of enquiry on the part of the alienee nor honest belief for the necessity. These observations in view of the peculiar facts of that case are not of much help of resolving the controversy. No other authority has been cited which is really germane of the contention canvassed before us. In view of the clear language of para 59 I cannot persuade myself to hold that on the facts of this case the consent to the sale given by Ishri Parshad during the minority of the plaintiff would estop him from suing for possession of his share of the ancestral land on the ground that the sale by his father was without consideration and legal necessity.