Age – Proof of – Date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate is not conclusive to decide the question of minority/majority of the person concerned, in civil proceedings

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J. - The present appeal directs challenge against consistent findings recorded by the courts whereby suit for possession by way of redemption of land measuring 33 kanal 6 marlas, detailed in head note of the plaint was partly decreed by the trial court to the following effect:-

“........the suit of the plaintiff must partly succeed and the same is hereby decreed to the effect that on deposit of entire mortgage amount Rs. 21,000/- in the court within two months from the passing of this decree, the suit property stands redeemed and the plaintiffs no. 3 and 4 are declared joint owners to the extent of 6 kanal 12 marlas in the suit property measuring 33 kanals 6 marlas alongwith Lrs. of Achhar Singh namely Jarnail Singh, Bhagat Singh, Ajaib Singh and Sukhjinder Singh and they are entitled to separate possession of the suit property by way of partition from the competent court of law.”

2. The appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant now represented by his LRs namely Jarnail Singh and others came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that as per case of the respondents-plaintiffs, land in dispute was owned by Kehar Singh son of Hira Singh. On death of Kehar Singh, his property devolved upon his son Swaran Singh and heirs of his pre-deceased son Gurcharan Singh (plaintiffs-respondents). Swaran Singh died issueless and widowless. His property was inherited by the respondents-plaintiffs being Lrs of Gurcharan Singh. Kehar Singh mortgaged the suit land in favour of Achhar Singh (since deceased) for Rs. 21,000/-, vide registered mortgage deed dated 21.11.1972. The period of redemption is over and plaintiffs are entitle to get the land redeemed on payment of Rs. 21,000/-. The defendant is alleging that sale deed dated 18.12.1989 was executed by plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. The alleged sale deed is forged and fabricated. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were minors at the time of alleged execution of sale deed and as such the same is illegal, null and void.

4. The appellant (since deceased) now represented by his Lrs filed the written statement raising preliminary objections inter alia that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit; suit is hopelessly time barred; mortgage had merged into ownership by the principle of merger. Achhar Singh purchased half share of suit land from Swaran Singh son of Kehar Singh. After death of Kehar Singh, the defendants purchased half share belonging to heirs of Gurcharan Singh, other son of deceased Kehar Singh. It is further averred that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

5. The respondents filed replication controverting the averments raised in the written statement while reiterating their stand taken in the plaint.

6. The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues by the trial court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to redemption of suit land, if so on payment of what amount? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file this suit OPD?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 4-A)Whether the sale deed dated 18.12.1989 executed by plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant is illegal, forged and fabricated and further whether plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 were not competent to execute the sale deed being minors ? OPP

4-B)Whether suit is within limitation? OPP 4-C)Whether the mortgage has merged into ownership as alleged in preliminary objection no. 5 of the written statement dated 10.4.2006? OPD

4-D)Whether suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

4-E) Whether Swaran Singh had sold his share in the suit land to the father of the defendant, if so its effect ? OPD

4-F) Whether the plaint