JUDGMENT

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The instant civil second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction, was dismissed.

2. Facts as emerge from the pleadings and contentions of the learned counsels for the respective parties are that father of the plaintiff; Sh. Govinda was khatedar of certain parcels of agricultural land in village Bhadrana Tehsil Amber who expired in the year 1971 when the plaintiffs were minor. Vide registered sale deed dated 11.07.1974, their mother Smt. Phooli Devi W/o of late Govinda sold their share in the aforesaid agricultural land to the defendants No. 1, 2 and father of the defendant No.3. As per the plaintiff's case, they were in continuous cultivation of the aforesaid piece of land and they came to know of the aforesaid sale deed in the second week of May, 2007 when the defendants tried to sell the property in dispute in favour of third person as well as tried to dispossess them forcibly. Therefore, the decree for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction was prayed for.

3. The defendants No.1 to 4 in their joint written statement admitted that father of the plaintiffs was having one third share in the parcel of the agricultural land as described in para No.1 of the plaint. It was submitted that they are in possession in land in question from the date of execution of the sale deed dated 11.07.1974 in their favour. It was denied that plaintiffs came to know of the execution of the sale deed in second week of May, 2007; but, it was submitted that from the very beginning the plaintiffs were aware of the sale in question and their suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed was barred of limitation. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed. The learned trial Court, as stated earlier, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs which was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants by way of first appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the findings recorded by the learned Court below on the premise that while dismissing the suit, they have ignored the mandatory provisions under Section 8 of the Hindi Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') which restrict powers of natural guardian of Hindu minor to sell minor's property without the previous permission of the Court. It was argued that the learned Courts below have erred in recording a finding that the suit was barred by limitation without there being any issue in this regard and absence of issue prevented them from leading evidence in this regard.

5. Relying upon para No. 14 of the plaint, it was canvassed that averments as to plaintiffs coming to know of the sale deed in second week of May, 2007 were not specifically denied by the defendants in their written statement; hence, it was obligatory upon the learned Courts below to have treated the averments to have been admitted by the defendants. It was contended that the knowledge of the appellants-plaintiffs about the sale deed in the year 2007, could also be gathered from the fact that they are in possession of the agricultural land in question till date.

6. It was contended by Shri Prahlad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that right of cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness PW-1-Shimbhu Singh by the defendants was closed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 16.11.2011 and when the aforesaid witness was inadvertently, in ignorance of the aforesaid order, was subjected to cross-examination on 11.05.2012, the learned trial Court passed an or