( 1. ) SURENDRA Kumar (R-4), Birendra Kumar (R-5), Santram (R-3), Rajkumar (R-2) and Rajendra (R-l) are sons of Ram Kripal (R-6) and his wife Pan Bai (R-7 ). These sons filed a civil suit on 8-10-86 challenging an auction sale held by Revenue Court on 1-9-71 of khasra No. 547 area 8. 191 hectares, land revenue 30. 84 paise, situate in village Bhanpur. Tehsil Ajaygarh (to be called as "suit land" only) in favour of Vishali (A-1 ). The grounds have been taken that :-

(1) The same was for repayment of loan taken by Ram Kripal for immoral purpose and (2) that sale was nullity. (a) firstly because a higher bid of Rs. 4000/- put by one Motilal was disregarded while the bid of Vishali (A-1) who had bid next lower bid of Rs. 3000/- was accepted and (b) Secondly that the l/4th sale amount was not deposited immediately but was deposited on the next day rest of the amount i. e. , 3/4th of sale amount was deposited on 22-2-78 about 6-1/2 years afterwards when the sale was confirmed.

( 2. ) IT is undisputed that Vishali (A-1 purchaser) had sold 4. 191 hectares of land to Daou (A-3) and Bhagat (A-4) on 19-7-78 vide Ex. D-2, 1. 596 hectares of land to Sampat Bai (A-2) vide Ex. D-3 on 8-2-80 and rest 2. 428 hectares of land to Anmil Rao (A-5) who sold the same to Sampat Bai (A-2) vide Ex. D-1 on 6-1-87.

( 3. ) APPELLANTS have claimed that Vishali (A-1) was put in possession of the land just after auction on 1-9-71. Ram Kripal (R-6) continued litigation in Revenue Courts but Vishali (A-1) was successful everywhere. Ram Kripal had taken Tallavi loan for purchase of diesel pump set. As he could not pay, sale was done by the Revenue court. As Motilal had not deposited l/4th of the bid money, recovery proceedings were started against him. Auction sale was confirmed on 22-2-78. The sale certificate was issued in favour of Vishali (A-1 ). Mutation was effected in favour of Vishali (A-1) and others appellants in due course. Surendra Kumar (R-4) and Birendra Kumar (R-5) were not even born on the date of auction thus, they could not challenge the auction. The other respondents had not filed the civil suit within a period of three years of their attaining the majority and thus the suit was barred by limitation.

( 4. ) THE Trial Court fully agreed with the appellants and held that (a) that the land was ancestral property of Ramkripal (R-6), (b) loan was taken for legal necessity, (c) auction sale was legal and (d) the civil suit was barred by limitation and thus dismissed the civil suit. The First Appellate Court agreed with him on points (a) and (b) but held in favour of respondents on points (c) and (d) and thus, decreed the civil suit with costs setting aside the auction sale and granting a decree for possession.

( 5. ) FOLLOWING substantial questions of law are framed in this appeal:

(1) Whether the auction sale in respect of suit lands in favour of the appellants was valid ? (2) Whether the suit by the respondents was incompetent in respect of minor plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who have not even born on the date of auction sale ? (3) Whether the suit was barred by limitation ? I proceed to decide all these questions serially.

( 6. ) RULES 37,38 and 39 of the Schedule (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 relating to sale of immovable property read as follows:-" 37. On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty five percent of the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forth with be resold. 38. The full amount of purchase money payable shall be paid by the purchaser within fifteen days from the date of the sale of the property. 39. In default of payment within the period mentioned in Rule 38, the deposit may, if the Revenue Officer, thinks fit after defraying the expenses of the sale be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be resold and the defaulting