IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 19 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. KAILASH S/O CHHOGALAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. TIJALPUR, PO SALAMATPUR, TAH. AND DISTT. RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SURESH ALIAS SURENDRA S/O CHHOGALAL CASTE YADAV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE TIJALPUR P.O.SALAMATPUR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI SANTOSH ANAND - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. KUMARI SABIHA D/O ABDUL RAHMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, INAYATPUR, KOLAR ROAD, TAH. AND DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHHOGALAL S/O PYARELAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KATSARI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. AWADH NARAYAN S/O CHHOGALAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KATSARI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT-RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( SHRI GAURAV PATHAK P.L. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated

22.09.2021 passed by Principal District Judge, Raisen in RCA No.21/2019 arising out of judgment dated 26.9.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Raisen in Civil Suit No.1900086/2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that planitiffs filed a suit for declaration of title as well as declaring sale deed executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void to the extent that plaintiffs' share on the ground that in the suit property, plaintiffs have 1/3 share each and plaintiffs share had been soled without obtaining prior sanction/permission. There was no bonafide requirement to sale property, defendant no.2 is in the habit of drinking and plaintiffs are son of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 is brother of plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants after referring to judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Saroj Vs. Sunder Singh and others, (2013) 15 SCC 727, Nangali Amma Bhawani Amma Vs. Gopal Kishnan & others, (2004) 8 SCC 785, Nagappan Vs. Ammaasai Gounder & others, 2004 13 SCC 480 submits that in view of Section 8 (2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 father of appellant was not competent to sold the minor property. At the time of execution of sale deed, appellant was minor. Further, after referring to judgment in the case of Amirtham Kudumbah Vs. Sarnam Kudumban(1991) 3 SCC 20, it is also urged that where there are pronouncements of Apex Court, of both sides. statutes itself should be referred and beneficial to minor should be adopted. It is also urged Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT that learned Courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. On above grounds, it is also urged that substantial questions of law arises in the second appeal and it be admitted for final hearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case.

5. It is apparent from the record of the case that trial Court decreed the suit but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

6. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed in RCS No.1900086/2016 decreed the suit but the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed in RCA No.21/2019 allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit.

10. Perusal of submissions of learned counsel for the appellants reveals that sole issue involved in the case is whether defendants No.2 and 3 was required to obtain prior permission or sanction under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act before executing sale of plaintiffs share. Learned counsel for appellants relying upon Nangali Amma (supra), Saroj (supra) and Nagappan (supra) has submitted that def