Amol Rattan Singh, J.

These are three appeals filed by the plaintiff against different respondents, arising out of three different suits filed by him before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar, in which he sought decrees of declaration that he is a co-owner of the land as detailed in the plaints, by first declaring that the sale deeds dated 17.09.1966 are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the appellant-plaintiff, and do not create any right in the respondent-defendants.

The suits and the first appeals filed by him having been dismissed, these second appeals have been filed before this Court.

Upon specific query to learned counsel for the appellant, he has submitted that three different suits were filed in view of the fact that the suit land had been alienated to different persons (the respondents-defendants in these appeals/their predecessors-in-interest), though all three sale deeds were executed on the same date, i.e. 17.09.1966.

Consequently, it has been submitted that other than the fact that the three different sale deeds were executed in respect of three different parcels of land, however, the facts otherwise remain the same in all three appeals. Hence, they have been taken up together and are virtually being dealt with as a single appeal by this judgment, though obviously three different decree sheets would eventually need to be drawn up.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that sale deeds were executed qua the land standing in the name of the plaintiff, by his grand-father Raghubir Singh, in favour of the respondents-defendants in these three appeals, on 17.09.1966, at a time when the plaintiff was about 12 years old, having been born on 07.11.1954.

It was contended that in the absence of any permission taken from a Court of competent jurisdiction, prior to selling the land owned by a minor, the sale deed was void ab initio and the plaintiff therefore, was to be declared the lawful owner of the suit land.

He further sought the consequential relief of possession of the suit land and permanent injunction against the defendants qua the suit property, restraining them from alienating it in any manner.

3. In the written statements filed by the defendants, preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suits, locus standi of the plaintiff, estoppel, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties were taken, further stating on merit that Raghubir Singh was duly authorised to execute the sale deed and as such, the transfer of the land to the defendants/their predecessors-in-interest, was perfectly legal and valid. The ownership of the plaintiff of the suit land, prior to the sale, was however, accepted.

It was further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was fully aware of the sale deed from the very beginning, as a notice was issued by the revenue authorities before sanctioning of the mutation in favour of the defendants and that earlier also, a suit had been filed by the plaintiff, titled as Gopal Dass versus Surta, in the year 1986, through which the plaintiff had complete knowledge about the sale deed in question at least since 1986, though it was contended that such knowledge was with the plaintiff even prior to that date.

4. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Additional Civil Judge:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the sale deed dated 17.09.1966 is wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP

3. If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction sought? OPP

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the suit