Islamic Law— -—Guardianship—Sale transaction by father as natural guardian of minor could be questioned by the minor on attainment of age of majority on the ground that the transaction had not been made for her. VIEW JUDGMENTS
Civil Procedure Code
-
Sch I - Order 32-33
-—O. XXXII, Rr.l & 2—Minor, a girl, on coming to know about the two transactions of sale of land, filed suit challenging them as being illegal, unauthorized, without consideration and inoperative against her ownership and possessory rights in the said land, inter alia, on the ground that the disputed transactions had taken place during the time when she was minor, that the sales were unauthorized and based on fraud and that no sale was made for her—Validity—Transferees under the sale had failed to prove the transaction of sale itself—Sale was shown to have been made for a consideration of huge amount but no cogent evidence was available that the said amount was passed on to the seller/vendor and if so, as to where the same was deposited or kept—Recital of the sale mutation itself manifested that no payment was made at the time of attestation of mutation whereas mere prior receipt of the same had been shown with the acknowledgement of exchange of possession of the land—No cogent evidence was produced regarding execution of power of attorney in favour of the alleged attorneys by the father of the minor, for, the best evidence was the said document itself which should have been produced in evidence alongwith the evidence of its execution which the transferees failed to do—Transferees at a later stage attempted to produce copy of the said power-of-attorney the production of which was rightly declined as secondary evidence could not have been allowed to be produced unless the requirement of law about non-availability of the primary evidence i.e. the original power of attorney had been established to the satisfaction of the Court which was not done—Even if-the sale transaction was made by the father of the minor as natural guardian under Islamic Law of the property of her minor daughter, the same still could be questioned by the minor on attainment of majority on the ground that the transaction had not been made for her benefit—Sale transaction, in circumstances, was not with consideration and thus rightly struck down by the Courts while the other sale having been made during the period of minority of the plaintiff and no sale consideration having been paid to her, the same was void and could be struck down on that ground and suit having been filed by the plaintiff within three years of attainment of her majority was within time—Said sale in circumstances was also rightly held to be not effective against her rights of ownership in the land being void and without consideration. VIEW JUDGMENTS
Revenue Laws
-
LAND REVENUE ACT, 1967 Ch I-VII S. 1-55
-S. 42—Mutation of sale—Presumption of correctness—Neither presumption of correctness nor that of truth to the contents of a mutation was attached under law—Once the existence of a transaction itself had been questioned by a party in a suit, it was legal obligation of the person claiming thereunder to prove the same. VIEW JUDGMENTS
Civil Procedure Code
-
Sch I - Order 12-13
-—O.XIII, R.I—Additional evidence, production of—Party requesting for production of additional evidence had no satisfactory answer as to why the documents to be produced as additional evidence were not relied under O.VIII read with O.VII, R.14, C.P.C. as every party in a suit was required to mention the documentary evidence which it would like to produce in evidence in support of its case so that the adverse party had sufficient notice—Effect—Unsuccessful party in a suit was not to be granted opportunity to fill up weaker parts of its case by producing additional evidence to the prejudice of the other party. VIEW JUDGMENTS
Age-- -- Determination— Best evidence to prove the fact of the age of a person was from those who would have in the ordinary course of life personal knowledge—Statement of the mother of the person concerned, with regard to her age; entries in the Birth Register and the Matriculation Certificate could be considered as unimpeachable evidence. VIEW JUDGMENTS
