Judgment

RAY, C. J. :- This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 9 May 1961 of the High Court at Patna dismissing the appellants suit.

2. The appellant filed this suit for a declaration that the alienation by the appellants father by deeds of sale dated 22 May, 1934 and 29 October, 1934 are null and void. The appellant asked for the consequential relief of possession. The defendants to the suit were of two categories. Defendants Nos. 1 to 14 belong to the first category. Defendant No. 15 is the father of the appellant and is in the second category. Defendants in the first category, were the vendees to the deeds of sale and the appellants father was the vendor.

3. The appellant challenged the deeds of sale on two principal grounds. First the appellant alleged that the appellants father was a minor on the dates of the deeds of sale and therefore the deeds were void. The second challenge to the deeds of sale was on the ground that there was no consideration and no legal necessity for alienation.

4. The Trial Court held that the deeds of sale were not genuine and there was no legal necessity. The Trial Court also held that for a sum of Rs. 231/- only out of the consideration of the deed of sale dated 29 October, 1934, there was valid consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit subject to the condition that in respect of the deed of sale dated 29 October, 1934, a sum of Rs. 231/- was to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the vendee within two months from the date of decree failing which the suit regarding second deed of sale was to be dismissed.

5. The High Court accepted the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the appellants suit.

6. On the question of alleged minority of the appellants father, the High Court come to the conclusion that the appellants father attained majority in 1931. The onus to prove minority lay on the appellant. The appellant examined his father as a witness on his behalf. The appellant relied on a certificate granted by the Head Master of Purnea Zila School dated 3rd January, 1951. The certificate was sought to be proved by a Clerk of the Zila School. The certificate was obtained by the appellant shortly before the institution of the suit. According to the certificate the appellants father was born on 13 April, 1916. The certificate is a copy from the Admission Register.

7. The High Court rightly did not place any reliance on the certificate. The truth of the contents of the certificate could not be proved by a clerk who only proved the hand-writing on the certificate. The Head Master, who issued the certificate, was not examined. The original Admission Register on the basis of which the certificate was given was not proved. The Clerk, who proved the hand-writings of the certificate, could not say who made the original entry in the Admission Register.

8. The appellants father in his own evidence stated that he did not read in any other school before joining Purnea Zila School. A co-villager who knew the appellants father and other family members said that the appellants father read at Dhamdaha School before the appellants father joined Purnea Zila School. The appellants father did not deny the evidence given by the co-villager. A Clerk of the Dhamdaha School also did not deny the fact that the appellants father read at that school. The appellant did not produce any records of Dhamdaha School. Some of the appellants witnesses and in particular the uncle of the appellant admitted that the appellants father as well as the appellant possessed horoscopes. Horoscopes were withheld by the appellant.

9. In addition to these facts the High Court held that appellants father was a major and not a minor when the decree in Money Suit No. 452 of 1932 was passed. Money Suit No. 452 of 1932 was contested by the appellants father. The appellants father did not there plead minority. The pleader who appeared for the appellant in this suit also appeared for the appellants father in Money Suit No. 452 of 1932.

10. The