Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The facts of the case lie within a very narrow ambit. The plaintiff-respondent Heimant Kumar who was born on 15.5.1970 was a minor of three years when a sale-deed was executed on 1.6.1973 by his father and natural guardian of a property which belonged to the minor. Upon the appointment of Chandrapal as a guardian of the minor on 30.4.1975 while his natural father was alive by the District Judge, Bijnor under Section 7 of the Act No. 8 of 1890, a suit was got filed by Chandrapal on behalf of the minor on 16.8.1975 for the cancellation of the sale-deed. The suit was numbered as 425 of 1975. After framing issues, the Trial Court on 24.2.1978 dismissed the suit and held that the sale-deed was validly executed. The First Appellate Court however on 19.11.1981 allowed the first appeal of the plaintiff and held that the sale-deed dated 1.6.1973 was void and cancelled the same.

2. Against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1981, the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendant buyers. On the date of admission the substantial questions of law as were framed by this Court are being reproduced herein as under;

I. Whether on the allegations as contained in the plaint the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case?

II. Whether the main relief was of possession and as such the Revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction?

III. Whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act?

IV. Whether the suit is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

V. Whether the certified copy of sale-deed is admissible in evidence under Section 90-A (2) of the Evidence Act without formal proof even though it is the basis of the suit?

VI. Whether the legal guardian has a right to maintain a suit for cancellation of a document which was executed before his appointment as legal guardian?

VII. Whether the sale-deed executed by the natural guardian of the minor is void or voidable?

VIII. Whether the amendment allowed by the lower appellate Court has changed the nature of the suit?

IX. Whether the appointment of legal guardian in preference to the natural guardian is illegal and in contravention of Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act?

X. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court are based on the misreading of evidence?

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date when the sale-deed was executed i.e. on 1.6.1973 the natural guardian of the minor i.e. his father was alive. He alone was responsible for the welfare of the minor and was the guardian of his interest. If at all the minor’s interest was not being guarded properly and the Court was of the opinion that the natural guardian i.e. the father of the minor was unfit to be a guardian of the minor then the Court could have appointed another person as a guardian. In the present case, the District Judge, Bijnor appointed Sri Chandrapal Singh as the guardian of the minor-Hemant on 30.4.1975 without there being a finding of fact as was compulsorily required under Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The order dated 30.4.1975 is being reproduced herein as under:

^^pwafd bl U;k;ky; esa vf/kfu;e 8 lu~ 1890 bZŒ dh /kkjk&7 ds vuqlkj vkidks gseUr dqekj ¼15-5-70½ vYio;Ld ds mlds vYio;Ld jgus dh vof/k rd vFkkZr~ fnukad 15 ekl ebZ lu~ 1991 bZŒ rd tks fd vYio;Ld jgus dh lekfIr dk le; gS vf/kfu;e ds vuqcU/kksa ds vuqlkj vkSj fo'ks"kr% mu vuqcU/kksa ds vuqlkj tks /kkjk;s 32 rFkk 39 rFkk 40 mijksDr vfèkfu;e esa O;ofLFkr gS] laj{kd mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vr% vkidks vuqefr nh tkrh gS fd mijksDr vYio;Ld dh laifRr vekur ds :i esa viuh lqiqnZxh esa ysdj lEiw.kZ _.k iz?kkj rFkk mfpr /kujkf'k;ksa tks vYio;Ld dh laifRr ij izkI; rFkk ns; gks izkIr djs vkSj nsos] rFkk vYio;Ld dh laifRr ds lEcU/k esa oknksa dks izLrqr djs rFkk tks okn mijksDr laifRr ds fo:) gks mudh izfrj{kk djsa rFkk lk/kkj.kr;k laiw.kZ dkjksckj tks vekurnkjh dh iw.kZ djus ds fy;s mfpr izdkj ls vko';d gks djrs jgs] ijUrq vuqcU/k ;g gS fd vki vius lajf{kr O;fD