A guardian's sale of a minor's property is valid if it is made for consideration and necessity, even if the sale deed mistakenly mentions the wrong land.

Pandit, J.

1. On 11th June, 1949 Smt. Bachni, as the guardian of her minor sons, Kartar Singh and others, sold by a registered deed land measuring 4 bighas 18 biswas out of Khasra No. 855 in favour of Thaman Singh for Rs. 1,230/-. Soon after Thaman Singh died and his sons, Ishar Singh and others started building a house of Khasra No. 867, which also belonged to Kartar Singh and others, sons of Smt. Bachni. On 11th March, 1955 Kartar Singh and others brought a suit (No. 164 of 1955) against Ishar Singh and others for possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 867 on the ground that they were the owners of the same and the defendants had no right to build on this Khasra number. It was also alleged that their mother Smt. Bachni, was not competent to sell the land comprised in Khasra No. 855 during their minority.

This suit was contested by the defendants who pleaded that the sale effected by Smt. Bachni, on behalf of her minor sons, in their favour was valid, because it was made for consideration and legal necessity and that possession of the site was delivered to the vendee, Thaman Singh, who was their father. It was also averred that as a matter of fact, land comprised in Khasra No. 867 was intended to be sold and was actually sold, but by mistake Khasra No. 855 was entered in the sale-deed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs sold Khasra No. 867 to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 through their mother ?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the sale is binding on the plaintiffs ?

3. Whether Khasra No. 855 has been entered by mistake in the sale-deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 ?

4. Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have made any constructions in Khasra No. 867 ? If so, what is its effect ?

5. Relief.

Another suit No. 120 of 1955 was filed by Ishar Singh and others for a declaration that they were the owners of Khasra No. 867, which had been sold to their father Thaman Singh by Smt. Bahni on behalf of her minor sons Kartar Singh and others. It was alleged that by mistake instead of Khasra No. 867, Khasra No. 855 had been entered in the sale deed dated 11th June, 1949, but they had been given possession of Khasra No. 867 and they had made constructions thereon.

This suit was resisted by Kartar Singh and others on the same grounds on which they had brought their suit No. 164 of 1955, referred to above.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in this case :-

1. Whether defendant No. 6 sold Khasra No. 867 on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 ? If so, whether the sale is binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether Khasra No. 855 was entered by mistake in the sale deed ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have made constructions on Khasra No. 867 ?

If so, what is its effect ?

4. Relief.

Both these suits were consolidated in the trial Court and evidence was recorded in suit No. 164 of 1955.

In suit No. 164 of 1955, the trial Judge held that the plaintiffs had sold Khasra No. 867 on the defendants through their mother; that the said sale was binding on the plaintiffs; that Khasra No. 855 had been entered by mistake in the sale deed; and that the defendants had made construction on khasra No. 867. On these findings the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

In suit No. 120 of 1955, it was held that Smt. Bachni had sold Khasra No. 867 on behalf of her sons and the said sale was binding on them; that Khasra No. 855 was entered by mistake in the deed; and that the plaintiffs had made constructions on Khasra No. 867. On these findings, their suit was decreed.

It may be mentioned that both these suits were disposed of by the trial Court by one judgment on 24th November, 1955. The appeals were filed by Kartar Singh and others in both these suits. They were disposed of by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana by means of one judgment. He confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Against this, two appeals (Regular Second Appeal Nos. 173 and