JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 113/2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the hereinafter extracted decree against the defendant:-

“Suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Baijnath at serial No. 58 dated 24.01.2002, in respect of land comprising of khata no.22 min, khatauni No. 45 min, Khasra No.107, measuring 0-27-89 hects upto the extant of 120/2789 shares i.e. 0-01-20 hects situated at Mohal Panjaila uperla, Muza Sansal, Teh Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. vide missal haquiat istemal 1996-97 executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff is null and void and is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as the plaintiff being minor cannot execute any sale deed and further the mutation No.158 dated 10.9.2002 of above said sale sanctioned and attested by the A.C. 1st Grade, Baijnath in favour of defendant is also wrong and illegal and is liable to be set aside with the consequential relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession for alienating the suit land by way of sale, gift, mortgage etc. and changing its nature in any manner”

2. The learned trial Court through its verdict made thereon on 8.6.2004 decreed the plaintiff's suit.

3. The aggrieved defendant constituted there against a Civil Appeal bearing No. 54-B/04 before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made on 11.08.2009, upon, the afore civil appeal, annulled the verdict of the learned trial court, and, obviously accepted the aggrieved defendant's appeal (supra).

4. The plaintiff being aggrieved, from the afore made verdict of the learned first appellate court, is led to constitute there against the extant appeal before this Court.

5. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 11.11.2010, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether first appellate court erred in appreciating the document Ex.CW1/A and certificate Ex.PW1/A, thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree?

2. Whether first appellate court below mis-read and mis-appreciated document Ex.D2 without same having been proved in accordance with law thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree?

3. Whether first appellate Court below misconceived and misapplied law in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 750 thereby vitiating impugned judgement and decree?

Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3.

6. The plaintiff had challenged through the suit supra, the validity, of, sale deed borne in Ex.P-2. The challenge as became drawn by the plaintiff to Ex.P-2, became embodied in the factum, that at the time of his executing Ex.P-2 with the defendant, his being a minor, and, obviously his becoming beset with a legal bar to execute a valid deed of conveyance with the defendant.

7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not contest, the factum of valid signatures of the plaintiff/appellant being borne on Ex.P-2.

8. The acerbic contest which has occurred inter se the contesting litigants, is centered upon, the appreciation of the documentary evidence(s), by the learned first appellate court, wherein, the plaintiff is recorded to be a minor. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, contends with much force before this Court that findings adversarial to the plaintiff, as, become rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, rather enjoin theirs becoming reversed by this Court. Ex. D-2, is, the copy of an affidavit sworn by Smt. Sundru Devi, the mother of the plaintiff, wherein, she has disclosed that the plaintiff Om Prakash, her son, was at the relevant time, inasmuch, at the time of execution of Ex.P-2 by him, vis-a-vis, the defendant, rather a major, and, also obviously he became capacitated t