The admissibility of evidence and the limitation period for challenging the alienation of minor's property were central legal points established in the judgment.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The defendant-State is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for possession tiled by the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The plaintiff was owner of land measuring 166 kanals 15 marlas situated at Shamgarh Tehsil and District Karnal. Gurinder Singh, father and natural guardian of plaintiffs executed a sale deed on 28.9.1956 in favour of Harjit Singh for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/- in respect of land measuring 118 kanals 6 marlas. Harjit Singh further sold the said land to State vide registered sale deed dated 1.3.1958 for Rs. 14,784.50p, whereas remaining land was sold to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff filed the present suit for possession on 3.10.1972 on the ground that at the time of sale of land by his father and natural guardian on 28.9.1956, the plaintiff was minor and thus the sale is ineffective qua his rights as effected without permission from the court guardian.

3. In evidence to prove his date of birth, the plaintiff has himself appeared as a witness as PW1 and produced Ex.P.1. The certified copy of pedigree table wherein the date of birth of the plaintiff is given as 16.8.1951. Said pedigree table is stated to be admissible in evidence in terms of the provisions of Punjab Jagir Act, 1941 and the provisions contained in para 172 of the Land Administration Manual.

4. On the basis of such proof of date of birth, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the land stands decreed by the courts below. Still aggrieved against the said judgment and decree the State is in second appeal. While admitting the appeal on July, 18, 1980 the court found the following substantial questions of law arise in this appear for consideration:

i) Whether the evidence consisting of a pedigree table contained in the register of Jagirs is legally admissible to prove the factum of the age of a person?

ii) Whether the suit in the instant case was barred by limitation in view of the fact that the age given by the plaintiff-respondent was 18 years in 1968 and the suit was filed in September, 1971 after the expiry of more than 3 years of the plaintiff attaining the age of majority?

iii) Whether the appellant State was protected by Section 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case?

5. Before adverting to the respective contentions of the parties, the evidence on record be noticed. The plaintiff has appeared as PW1 and deposed that he was minor at the time of sale in the year 3956 and that his father was Jagirdar and Ex.P1 is the pedigree table from the register of Jagirdar. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Pedigree table obtained by the plaintiff on 16.10.1973. Said document is a copy of the register of Jagir Shamgarh and Singh family starting from Kirpal Singh. It also refers the date of birth and date of death of the persons named therein.

6. As per the said pedigree table, the appellant Sukhjit Singh, Gurjit Singh and Daljit Singh are reflected to be born on 16.8.1951, 20.11.1941 and 11.3.1940 respectively to Harinder Singh born on 4.9.1920. Harinder Singh had another brother Gurdial Singh born on 9.10.1934 who died on 9.9.1940. Gurdial Singh and Harinder Singh are sons of Gurbax Singh who was born on 22.8.1877 and died on 23.2.1943. On the basis of birth and death entries recorded in such pedigree table the plaintiff has sought to prove his date of birth as 16.8.1951.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Ex.P.1 is not admissible in evidence nor the date of birth can be said to have been proved only on the basis of entries contained in such document. Reliance was placed on State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 684 to contend that the entries in such pedigree table are not proved to have been made by a public servant and even if such document is admissible in evidence, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless the primary eviden