A minor cannot give his assent either expressly or by implication to an alienation of property belonging to him, and therefore, the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be attracted to such a case.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the District Court, Ropar, under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The undisputed facts are that the State Government acquired 264 kanals and 2 marlas of land (the details of which are contained in Reference No. 16 of June 1, 1981), for the construction of Ropar Thermal Plant. The requisite notification in this regard was published under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act on July 5, 1979. Concededly Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh, Sarup Singh and Raghbir Singh sons of Arjan Singh were the original owners of this land. They sold it in two lots to Tulsi son of Ghanyia Ram somewhere in the year 1959. These sales were pre-empted by Baldev Singh through two civil suits, namely, Nos. 71 and 72 of 1959 and two separate decreed covering the entire land were passed in his favour on Aug. 22, 1960 (Exhibit R.20) and July 18, 1960 (Exhibit R.19). The requisite pre-emption money was deposited by the plaintiff within the stipulated time and thus he perfected his title to the land. Baldev Singh, however, could not take possession of the land prior to its acquisition by executing the decrees referred to earlier. The said land was again sold by the original owners, i.e., Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh, Sarup Singh and Raghbir Singh through nine different sale deeds from June 7, 1965 to Nov. 18, 1966. Before these vendees who are now appellants in this Court could be paid the compensation (Rs.2,21,764.08 p.) for this acquired land, Baldev Singh pre-emptor staked his claim to the money on the ground that he is the real owner of the acquired property in view of the decrees Exhibits R.20 and R.19. This dispute, as already indicated, led to the making of a reference under Sec.30 of the Act.

2. The primary stand of the appellants before the trial Court to contest the claim of respondent Baldev Singh was that since he had failed to take possession of the property in question by executing the decrees in his favour within 12 years of the passing of the same, the said decrees had exhausted themselves and he could not more be treated as the owner of the property. Of course it was also obliquely said that they had acquired the property from the original owners for consideration in a bona fide manner. Protection of Sec.41 of the T.P. Act was, however, not specifically pleaded. In the light of the pleadings of the parties the Court set the following four issues for trial : -

1. Whether the claimant-petitioners purchased the acquired land in question from Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh, Sarup Singh and Raghbir Singh on different dates as alleged?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the said sales are valid?

3. Whether the rival claimant-petitioner earlier secured two pre-emption decrees in respect of the acquired land in question after initial sales thereof in favour of Tulsi, by Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh, Sarup Singh and Raghbir Singh, as alleged. If so, whether such pre-emption decrees still subsist?

4. If issue No. 3 is proved, whether the rival claimant-petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of the land in question, in preference to the claimant petitioners?

The latter mentioned two issues, i.e., Nos. 3 and 4, were held in favour of Baldev Singh. Under issues Nos. 1 and 2, it was found that though the appellants had purchased the suit property from Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh. Sarup Singh and Raghbir Singh on different dates, yet those sale deeds conferred no title on them in view of the fact that these vendors had already sold their interests in favour of Tulsi son of Ghanyia which sales had duly been pre-empted by Baldev Singh respondent and with the deposit of the pre-emption money within the stipulated time he had acquired a complete and valid title to the property. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that they were entitled to the protection of Sec.41 of the T.P. Act was rejected on the ground that no such specific plea had been taken in their pleadings.

3 It is be