JUDGMENT

B. Upadhya, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain properties set out in the plaint.

2. One Ayodhya Prasad was the owner of certain zamindari property. He died leaving his widow Mst. Bachha and his heir and a daughter Mst. Chhotka. After Ayodhya Prasad's death Mst. Bachha succeeded to his assets and after Mst. Bachha's death Ayodhya Prasad's daughter came to be in possession over the properties left by him. Mst. Chhotka had a son Debi Saran, the present Plaintiff. On the 26th September, 1930, was executed a sale-deed for Rs. 250/- in respect of certain properties by Mst. Chhotka and Debi Saran. Mst. Chhotka died on the 5th January, 1945, and after her death the Plaintiff brought a suit to recover possession of the property to which he had become entitled as the daughter's son of Ayodhya on the ground that the sale-deed mentioned above was a transfer of the life estate of Mst. Chhotka deceased and as at that time the Plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the property, the execution of the sale-deed by him. conveyed no right, title or interest in the property to the vendee and now that the reversion had opened on Mst. Chhotka's death, he became entided to the property and brought this suit to recover possession as the sale by her was not binding on him. It was also urged in the plaint that the sale-deed had been executed under undue influence" and without consideration, and that the Plaintiff was a minor at the time when the document was executed. It was also pleaded that at the time of the sale the Plaintiff had at best only a chance of succession which was not transferred according to Section 6-A of the Transfer of Properly Act and the sale was, therefore, entirely illegal.

3. The suit was contested on various grounds. It was urged that the Plaintiff was not a minor at the time when he executed the document, that the sale was not bad because of undue influence, that full consideration had been paid for it, that the Plaintiff was estopped from challenging the sale and that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The learned Munsif, held that the Plaintiff was not a minor at the time when the sale-deed was executed, that full consideration had been paid for the same and that the sale-deed had not been executed under undue influence or without consideration. On the question of estoppel, the learned Munsif does not seem to have given adequate consideration to the relevant facts, but he appears to have disposed of the matter in a short sentence saying that the Plaintiff was not precluded from challenging the validity of the sale. The suit was decreed with costs.

5. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and held that on the date this alienation was made it amounted to a transfer of 'a widow's estate and a spes successionis'. The learned Judge took the view that the transfer could not have been effective after the death of Mst. Chhotka. Certain cases were discussed by the learned Judge and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported at 1923 All. 387 was also placed before him. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the Plaintiff's attempt to transfer at that time was inoperative as a transfer of property, and was void in law for it was only a transfer of a chance of a succession, and as the sale was not a part of a family arrangement or a compromise between rival claimants, the sale could not be binding on the Plaintiff and he accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed before me again the decision in 1923 All. 387 and has also referred to a recent decision in Ganga Bux Singh v. Madho Singh 1955 A.W.R. (H.C.) 223. Relying on these authorities, learned Counsel has argued that as the Plaintiff was an adult at the time when the saledeed in dispute was executed and was a party to the document which was a conveyance for a consideration he was now estopped f