( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Procedure Code) readwith Order 41 Civil Procedure Code. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1973 passed by Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi in Suit No. 215/69. By the said judgment and decree, suit of the. plaintiffs/appellants has been dismissed with costs to defendants No. 1 to 3 and 6. The appellants at the time of filing the suit were minors. The suit was filed by them through maternal uncle and next friend, Sh. Khushi Ram Sharma. It is reversionary suit filed by them challenging the alienation of occupancy rights of their father, who was arrayed as defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 had sold the occupancy rights of the land measuring 7 bighas 14 biswas per Khewat No. 121, khasra No. 780, situated in village Naraina, Delhi in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. 00. In suit decree of declaration was claimed to the effect that the aforesaid sale was illegal and without consideration. It may be mentioned that the suit land, by that time, had been acquired by the Union of India i. e. defendant No. 6 and defendants No. 1 to 3 were given a sum of Rs. 17,071. 45p as Compensation for the aforesaid land acquired by the Union of India. Therefore, while praying for decree of declaration that the sale of the suit land was illegal, plaintiffs/appellants had consequentially prayed that they were entitled to recover the aforesaid sum ofrs. l7,071. 45pfrom defendants No. 1 to 3 which they had received from Union of India in acquisition proceedings. Defendants No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 6 contested the suit. Defendant No. 4, father of the plaintiff/appellants on the other hand filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and praying that the suit be decreed. Defendant No. 5 had also admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. It may be mentioned that defendant No. 5 is also a son of defendant No. 4, like the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in their separate written statements had, apart from taking number of legal objections, pleaded that suit was the result of collusion between plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants No. 4 and 5 on the other hand and that Defendant No. 4 had sold his rights in suit land in state of good, sound mind and understanding, for valuable consideration, for necessity and in the interest of family. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by the Trial Court:

(1) Whether the suit is barred by time? (2) Whether the civil courts have no jurisdiction to try the present suit? (3) Whether the suit for declaration is not maintainable? (4) Whether the act and the conduct of the plaintiff bars the present suit? (5) Whether a valid notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code has been served on the Union of India? If not, what its effect? (6) Whether the land in suit has been acquired by the Union of India? If so, its effect? (7) Whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of the defendant No. 4 and can challenge the sale? (8) Whether the sale made by defendant No. 4 is illegal, and ineffective as alleged in the plaint? (9) Whether the sale is for legal necessity? (10) Relief.

( 2 ) ISSUES No. 1 to 6 were decided in favour of Plaintiffs. However Issues No. 7 to 9 were decided against the plaintiffs and resultantly the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed.

( 3 ) MR. Rajinder Dutt, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the findings of the Trial Court on all the aforesaid three issues.

( 4 ) BEFORE we proceed to note the contentions of the appellants and examine them, it would be appropriate to state some material facts and the judgment of the trail court on the aforesaid issues. As per the revenue record, defendant No. 4 was having occupancy rights over the suit land. On 23rd January, 1952, he mutated mortgage of the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 for Rs. 1,600. 00. On 20th February, 1952, the suit land was sold to defe