The legal principles regarding minor's competence to contract, necessity of guardian's permission for property alienation, and requirements for a valid contract were central to the judgment.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the sale deed dated 9.9.1991 executed in favour of the defendant-appellant on the basis of power of attorney dated 29.8.1991 is not binding on the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 because her date of birth is 26.2.1975 and she attained majority on 26.2.1993. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was minor at the time of execution of the power of attorney dated 29.8.1991 and therefore it was void.

2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit No. 31 on 26.11.1994 seeking declaration to the effect that she is owner in joint possession with defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 12 of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9.9.1991 in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 6-1/2 marlas belonging to her share executed by one Smt. Rattan Kaur (now represented by defendant- respondent Nos. 2 to 6) is null and void and does not bind her. She further alleged that Avtar Singh her father died about 8-10 years preceding the filing the suit which was filed on 26.11.1994 and after his death she inherited the property alongwith other legal representatives. Even mutation was duly sanctioned. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 further alleged that she attained the age of majority on 26.2.1993 as she was born on 26.2.1975. It was alleged that she was minor when the sale deed dated 9.9.1991 was executed by Rattan Kaur on the basis or her alleged general power of attorney dated 29.8.1991. Therefore, it has been claimed the sale deed and mutation effected on that basis in favour of defendant-appellant have no binding effect on her rights because Rattan Kaur was fully aware that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was minor at that time.

3. Defendant-appellant took the stand that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was estopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct as he held out to the defendant-appellant that she was major and fully competent to execute the power of attorney in favour of her mother Rattan Kaur. On the basis of the representation made and believing her representation regarding her age as correct power of attorney was got executed on 29.8.1991 and on that basis sale deed was executed by Rattan Kaur in favour of defendant-appellant on 9.9.1991. Further objection has been raised with regard to the period of limitation and it is alleged that the suit is time barred. The date of birth as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent to be 26.2.1975 has also been disputed and it is claimed that the defendant-appellant was a bona fide purchaser.

4. On the vital issue as to whether the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was qualified to execute the power of attorney on 29.8.1991 and therefore the sale deed was valid, both the Courts below recorded findings of facts that the date of birth of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is 26.2.1975 and as such she was not competent to execute any power of attorney in favour of her mother Rattan Kaur authorising her to alienate her share in the property. Therefore, it was held that the sale deed dated 9.9.1991 is void ab-initio and cannot confer any right on the defendant-appellant.

5. Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 three conditions are required to be fulfilled before the document is admitted in evidence. Firstly, the document must be shown to be a public document or any other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry in that document stating the fact in issue or relevant fact and thirdly, the entry must be made in such a document by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in the performance of his duty especially enjoined upon him by law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Munshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 19