The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to property sold in auction, and the admission of a witness is not binding on the party.

( 1 ) ALL the above four appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1982 passed by Sri K. C. Bhargava, the then learned Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1979, 45 of 1979, 642 of 1979 and 571 of 1979 respectively which were decided by a common judgment.

( 2 ) KRISHNA Mohan and Ram Mohan, appellants in all four appeals (hereinafter called the appellants) filed Original Suit No. 91 of 1968 on 24-5-1967, through their next friend, against Bal Krishna Chaturvedi, the respondent No. 1 in all the four appeals, for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering in their peaceful possession over the open land shown with green colour in the plaint map and house shown with letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da and red colour in plaint map. The case of the appellants, briefly stated was that the house shown with letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da existing over Plot No. 905 of Mohalla Daraganj, Allahabad city, was constructed by their father Ram Avtar and he was in possession over it till his lifetime. The open land shown with green colour in the plaint map was appurtenant to the said house and was being used by their father for the purpose of sehan for tethering cattle, preparing cow dung cakes and for keeping other domestic articles. After death of their father the appellants came in possession over the house and the land in suit as its owners. They further pleaded that their father Ram Avatar had perfected his title over the house and land in suit by way of adverse possession and the same was inherited by the appellants. Respondent-Bal Krishna Chaturvedi had no concern or connection with the house and land in suit, but he threatened to take forcible possession over it. They further alleged that the mental condition of their mother was not sound and, therefore, she was not competent to become their next friend.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Bal Krishna Chaturvedi contested the above suit by filing written statement contending therein inter alia that he purchased the land in suit on 22-4-1961 in auction sale in Execution Case No. 11 of 1960, Lala Munni Lal and others v. Kullu Lal and others, relating to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, arising out of decree in O. S. No. 59 of 1957 and obtained possession through Amin of the Court on 19-7-1966. Since then he was in continuous possession over the land in suit. In the above Execution Case Smt. Ram Kali for herself and as guardian of the appellants filed objection under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. which was rejected on 4-3-1967. Thereafter the mother of the appellants did not file any declaratory suit, therefore, the suit filed by appellants was barred and not maintainable. The mother of the appellants previously claimed herself and her husband as tenant of the house in suit but subsequently the appellants asserted themselves as its owners. Therefore, the suit was barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. He further contended that the suit was barred by time, it was not properly valued and the Court-fee paid was insufficient.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER respondent Bal Krishna Chaturvedi filed Original Suit No. 164 of 1971 on 2-10-1971 against Smt. Ram Kali, the appellants, Smt. Malati and Smt. Shanti for recovery of possession over plot No. 905 with superstructures and fixtures standing thereon, numbering 587 and for damages amounting to Rs. 288. 00 with pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 8. 00 per month. The case of respondent Bal Krishna Chaturvedi was that plot No. 905 was Parti land belonging to one Kunnu Lal. He purchased the above plot in auction sale for Rs. 2050. 00 on 22-4-1961. Kunnu Lal had put a temporary structure in the shape of Kachcha Jhopri over the said land. He got actual possession over the whole of the plot including fixtures standing thereon, in Dakhal Dihani through Court Amin on 10-7-1966 and continued in actual possession thereon. After delivery of possession to the respon