T.R. Appasami Ayyangar vs Narayanaswami Iyer And Ors. on 28 March, 1930
607 and it was also decided in Lila Dhar v. Piarey Lal 62 Ind Cas. 258 : A.I.R. 1921 All 326 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A.) 511 : 19 A.L.J. 578. In Khan gul v. Lakha Singh 111 Ind. Cas. 175 : A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 609 : 9 L. 701 : 10 L.L.J. 413 : 30 P.L.R. 69 a purchaser sued a minor vendor, who had misrepresented his age, for possession of the property sold or for return of the purchase money. A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court were of the opinion that in such circumstances the minor must return the benefit received, whether he was a plaintiff or defendant. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar has suggested that in this case Section 41, Specific Relief Act, cannot be applied because plaintiff No. 1 need not have included any prayer for a declaration that her sale-deed was void in the plaint. As he puts it, she could have ignored the sale-deed and could have brought the suit solely for recovery of possession; in that way Section 41 might have been avoided. But I do not think that manoeuvre would really alter the position. If plaintiff No. 1 has simply brought her suit for possession, defendant No. 1 would have met her with her sale-deed. Then the Court would have had to consider the very same question whether that was a valid sale-deed, whether it was a sale-deed which the Court should declare void, as has been declared here, and, when the Court considered the matter in that way, it would have been proper to apply the principle of Section 41, Specific Relief Act.