JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Gehru through his wife and next friend (Smt. Devku) filed the instant suit in forma-pauperis seeking the following reliefs: (a) for possession of orchard measuring 21 bighas 7 biswas as per entries in the Jamabaodi for the years 1971-72 contained in Khata Khatonies No. 740/1565 to 1569 ; (b) for recovery of Rs. 50,000 on account of mesne-profits for the use and occupation of land described in (a) for the last fifteen years ; (c) for mandatory injunction directing defendants No 2 to 6 to pay rent of the disputed land to the plaintiff; AND in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 1,10,000 (Rs. 60,000) on account of sale price of land plus (Rs. 50,000) on account of interest thereupon for the last eight years. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that Sh. Gehru was deaf and dumb person since his birth and possessing low intelligence and he suffered disability at all material times. The disputed property referred to above belonged to the plaintiff. On 28-4-1965, plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney in favour of his wife Smt. Sobhi who So pursuance thereof sold the land aforesaid to defendants No. 11 and 12 ‘benami’ through defendant No. 1 for ostensible consideration of Rs. 31,009 It is alleged that on account of legal disability suffered by the plaintiff the sale in question was void ab inito and it did not create any interest in favour of defendants No 11,12 or defendant No. 1 or anybody else. At the material time defendant No, 12 was posted as Deputy Commissioner Kullu and it was through his influence that Smt. Sobhi executed the sale deed referred to above Further allegation is that vendees knew the mental incapacity of the plaintiff and also that the sale affected in their favour was void. Despite that defendant No. 1 sold 9 bighas of land in favour of defendant No. 7 to 12 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000 sometimes in the year 1971 which was also void transaction creating no interest in their favour. It is also asserted that defendants No. 2 to 6 were the tenants of the disputed land and after the impugned sale they started payment of rent to defendants No, 1, 11 and 12 instead of the plaintiff. As such plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. It is also asserted that defendants No. 2 to 6 were the tenants of the disputed land and after the impugned sale they started payment of rent to defendants No, 1, 11 and 12 instead of the plaintiff. As such plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of rent for the last 15 years from the defendants. Also defendant No. 1 started ejectment proceedings against defendant No. 2 to 6 by claiming himself to be the owner of the disputed land through defendant No. 11, his general attorney without having any right, title or interest. 3. Defendant No, 11 and 12 did not claim ownership nor possession of the disputed land nor any other interest therein through their written statement separately filed by them. Defendants No 7 to 10 claimed to be bonafide purchasers of the suit land. However, they raised preliminary objections regarding the locus standi, limitation. They also contended that plaintiff did not suffer any legal disability as alleged, Further according to them as defendants No 2 to 6 remained tenants over the disputed land, its proprietary rights were contended to have automatically vested in them under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and thus the jurisdiction of this Court has also been challenged. 4. Defendant No. 1 resisted and contested the suit by taking various preliminary objections with respect to limitation, cause of action, mis-joinder of parties, estoppel, jurisdiction and on merits contended that the instant suit is not maintainable since a declaration for cancellation of the sale deed has not been sought for by the plaintiff. Further it was contended that suit had been over-valued for the purpose of Courts fee and jurisdiction; that Smt. Devku is not the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and she is not entitled to maintain the suit. Regarding Smt. Kimtu, the daughter of the plaintiff it was contended that she had acquiesced in the sale of the property in question and she was estopped from filing the present suit, Further it was contended that Bhagat Ram of village Bharka tehsil and district Kullu was financing the litigation with a view to ultimately reap the harvest of the litigation and Smt. Devku thus was an interested person and could not as such act as next friend of the plaintiff. Regarding further sale affected in favour of defendants No. 7 to 10 it was contended to be a legal and valid one inasmuch as he claimed himself to be absolute owner of the property in question. Regarding mesne-profits it was contended to be time-barred claim. Thus on the above said basis he claimed special costs under section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 Replication was filed by the plaintiff through his next friend wherein the allegations made in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement controverted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties this Court framed issues on 17-7-1984 and two additional issues after the death of Gehru plaintiff on 24-5-1985; which are as follows:— 1. Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? O PP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants No. 2, 6, 11 and 12 as alleged ? OPD-1. 4. Whether the plaint does not disclose an enforceable cause of action ? OPD-12. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his acts of omission, commission and acquiescence ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged in the written statement of defendant No. 1 ? OPD-1. 8. Whether Gehru plaintiff (now deceased) was born deaf and dumb and a person of low intelligence ? If so with what effect ? OPD 9. Whether Smt Sobhi was authorised to execute the sale deed on behalf of Gehru? OPD. 10. Whether the sale dated 28-4-1965 is void, illegal, inoperative and a nullity as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. 11. In case issue No. 10 is proved then whether defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 7 to 10 have become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession as alleged ? OPD 1, 7 to 10. 12. Whether defendant No. 1 is a "Benamidar" on behalf of defendants 11 and 12 as alleged ? If so its effect. OPD. 13. Whether defendants No. 7 to 10 are banafide transferees for valuable consideration without notice ? OPD (7 to 10). 14. OPD 1, 7 to 10. 12. Whether defendant No. 1 is a "Benamidar" on behalf of defendants 11 and 12 as alleged ? If so its effect. OPD. 13. Whether defendants No. 7 to 10 are banafide transferees for valuable consideration without notice ? OPD (7 to 10). 14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount of rent from defendants 2 to 6 or defendants No. 1, 11 and 12? If so how much and from which of the defendants? OPD. 15. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount on account of mesne profits as alleged? If so how much and from whom ? OPD. 16. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount as sale price and interest? If so how much and from whom ? OPP. 17. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as alleged? OPD. 18. Whether the defendants No. 1, 11 and 12 are entitled to special costs, if so how much? OPD 1^ 11 and 12 19. Relief. Issues framed on 24-4-1985: 1. Whether Stnt. Devku is the widow of the deceased plaintiff, Gehru; If not, to what effect ? 2. Whether Smt Kimtu is not entitled to maintain this suit for the reasons given in para 10 of the preliminary objections? 7. During the pendency of the suit, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff vide his separate statement recorded on 25th November, 1986 gave up defendants No. 2 to 6 and the relief claimed against them. Accordingly, their names were deleted and necessary alterations were made in the plaint. 8. The parties adduced evidence on the aforesaid issues and arguments were heard at length. 9. It would be pertinent to detail here that during the pendency defendant No 12 also expired and his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants. Apart from it, during arguments, the defendants did not press issues No 2 to 4, 7, 12, 14, 16 and 17 as framed on 17-7-1984. 9. It would be pertinent to detail here that during the pendency defendant No 12 also expired and his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants. Apart from it, during arguments, the defendants did not press issues No 2 to 4, 7, 12, 14, 16 and 17 as framed on 17-7-1984. On issue No 12 learned Counsel for the defendants frankly conceded that in view of section 2 (1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 which prohibits the institution of the suit, preferring of claim’ or action to enforce any right where the real owner in a Benami9 transaction is having interest in respect of any property standing in the name of ‘Benamidar’ this issue had become redundant. According to both the parties, the determination of other issues, mainly depended upon Issue No 9 which was crucial, as such I shall deal with this issue in the first instance. Issue No. 9 I 10. Under this issue the question to be determined is, "whether Smt. Sobhi was authorised to execute the sale-deed on behalf of Gehru”? The onus of this issue was placed on defendants. In this respect the statement of DWs 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are relevant. 11. DW-3 Shri Hardip Singh Bal remained posted as Naib Tehsildar-cum-Joint Sub Registrar, Kullu from July 1961 to March 1963. He had attested the original general power of attorney (photostat copy Ex. D-2). He has categorically stated that Gehru could understand if spoken to repeatedly in very high tone and thereafter he was capable of conveying his answers by signs. He testifies to have verified the contents of power of attorney from him through the above said procedure. He categorically states that though be did not read the entire power of attorney to him but he made him (Gehru) understand the specific points involved in it and got his assent thereto in the presence of attesting witnesses. He then states that it was signed by the said attesting witnesses also and he made endorsement Ex. D/A to D2/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that medical certificate Ex. D-3 was also appended without his askance with the original general power of attorney when it was presented for registration. He then states that it was signed by the said attesting witnesses also and he made endorsement Ex. D/A to D2/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that medical certificate Ex. D-3 was also appended without his askance with the original general power of attorney when it was presented for registration. He also admits that he did cot made enquiries about the medical certificate from Dr Manjit Singh, its author (DW-10) because he was competent to act independently. He then admits that Gehru was illiterate; that he could not speak at all and was totally dumb but only could do "As-Aa-Aa" from his mouth. However, he claims to have asked many questions himself or sometimes through his Reader id loud voice. He admits that all the endorsement referred to above are in the hand of the Registration Clerk but the same bear his signatures. He then states that he had asked as to whether he wanted to execute power of attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi and he nodded in the affirmative. This suggestion that Gehru was completely deaf person, has been denied by him. He also refuted that the original of document D-2 was registered in routine without caring to fully verify whether Gehru a deaf and dumb person, understood its contents or not. He states that he did not know Madan Lal defendant No. 1, at that time. 12. DW-5 Pritam was performing the duties of Lambardar for the last 50 years on May 11,1987 when statement was recorded He states that he knew Gebru as also Sobhi ; that latter was formers wife and he also put his signatures on the power of attorney as attesting witness. He states to have signed the said document firstly at the time of its execution before the scribe Shri Hira Lal and tater before the Tehsildar at the time of its registration. He states that Tehsildar made Gehru understand the contents of power of attorney through signs and he answered by signs and thereafter Gehru thumb marked it. He categorically admits in his examination-in-chief that he was not lambardar of Phati Nathans at the relevant time According to him that lambardar was lying ill and, therefore, was asked to attest it being lambardar of an adjoining Phati. In his cross-examination he admits that he knew Gehru very well and he could hear if spoken to very loudly. He categorically admits in his examination-in-chief that he was not lambardar of Phati Nathans at the relevant time According to him that lambardar was lying ill and, therefore, was asked to attest it being lambardar of an adjoining Phati. In his cross-examination he admits that he knew Gehru very well and he could hear if spoken to very loudly. In the cross-examination by the plaintiff he states that he did not know the parents of Gehru; that Gehra was elder to him in age ; that scribe had asked Gehru as to what was to be written, whereto the plaintiff replied in signs that he wanted to authorise Sobhi to sell away his land and he indicated by saying the words laari" and he shook his hand in order to show that he wanted to authorise her to sell his land. He also pointed out this fact by keeping his hand on her chest. He has shown his ignorance as to who was the mother of Kimtu, plaintiff. The suggestion that he used to attest all the documents which were got executed by Shri Charan Dass Dogra or that he used to act as his agent in that area, had been refuted. Fie admitted that he appeared as a witness on behalf of the said Shri Charan Dass Dogra. He states that Hekam Chand was the lambardar of Phati Nathan at the relevant time and also at the time when Sobhi sold land to Shri Charan Dass Dogra. 13. DW-6 Shri Bisban Lal aged 65 years is the son of Hira Lal petitioner writer and scribe of general power of attorney. He has proved that his father was the author of original of Ex. D-2. 14. DW-9 Shri Palden, defendant, stated on oath that he knew Kimtu, Gehru and Sobhi as also Devku who resided in village Ghordor. In the cross-examination by the plaintiff, he stated that he had been staying in that village after the purchase of land; that he used to meet Gehru who was deaf and could understand by signs. According to him he could not speak at all. 15. DW-10 is Dr. Manjit Singh aged 52 years. He states that at the material time be was posted as Assistant Swrgeoo-cum-Incharge of the Civil Hospital Kullu from October, 1962 to April 1963 He admits to have issued Medical Certificate Ex. D-3. According to him he could not speak at all. 15. DW-10 is Dr. Manjit Singh aged 52 years. He states that at the material time be was posted as Assistant Swrgeoo-cum-Incharge of the Civil Hospital Kullu from October, 1962 to April 1963 He admits to have issued Medical Certificate Ex. D-3. After examining Gehro he claims that, contents of that certificate are correct He also states that he was allowed private practice. In his cross-examination by the plaintiff, he admits that he had issued Medical Certificate D-3 in discharge of his official duties though Gehru had not been admitted as an indoor-patient nor registered as out-door patient. According to him Thakur Beli Ram Advocate sod wife of Gehru had brought him for examination. Thakur Beli Ram had apprised him that Gehru had to dispose of his property and that a certificate was required as to whether he was Intelligent enough to understand and answer questions put to him by gestures. Need had arisen because Gehru was partially deaf and dumb Then he states that Gehru could speak a little like words "Haan—Maan". He states that though he does not remember whether he asked his name but he did ask him whether his property should be given to his wife and whether he had any objection to it to which querry he by gesture indicated that he had no objection. He states that this was done by him by shaking bands Further he states that he obtained the help of his compouoder who knew local dialect and asked him to put questions to Gehru He admits that he was not acquainted with Gehru or his wife prior to that date. He also admits that he did cot obtain the signatures of Thakur Bell Ram a Member of the Punjab Legislative Council in token of the Identification of Gehru or his wife. The suggestion that Gehru and his wife had been brought to him by Shri Cfearan Dass Dogra and not by Thakur Beli Ram, have been denied. He claims to have asked 5/6 questions to Gehru through his compounder. He admits that he did not make any entry in the hospital register regarding the issuance of the medical certificate which according to him was not needed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He claims to have asked 5/6 questions to Gehru through his compounder. He admits that he did not make any entry in the hospital register regarding the issuance of the medical certificate which according to him was not needed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. To a further suggestion that he had issued the certificate under the influence of Thakur Beli Ram or that of Charan Dass Dogra, have also been denied. 16. It is to be noted that no suggestion has been put to either of the witnesses referred to above by the plaintiff that Gehru was suffering from mental disability and that he was a person of such a low intelligence that he could not understand the business whether it was beneficial to his interest or not. 17. In rebuttal, the plaintiff have produced PW-1 Smt Kimtu, daughter of Gehru, PW-2 Lai Chand, brother of Bfaagat Ram, Kardar of Devta Gaopati and PW-3 Kundan Singh who remained servant of Gehru and continued to manage his land for about 12 years, and PW-4 Thakur Beli Ram Advocate. 18. PW-1 Smt. Kimtu was aged about 29/30 years on 25-11-1986 when her statement was recorded. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that Sh. Gehru was her father and Smt Sevti was her mother; that Gehru was born deaf and dumb but he used to understand by signs. The only sign he used to make was that he wanted something to eat by pointing out his fingers towards his mouth and beyond that he could not understand In her cross-examination, she admitted that her mother died 19 or 20 years ago, i e, in the year 1967 or 1968; that she is the sole heir of her father. She further states that her father could not understand with signs and gestures nor he could express himself likewise though he was deaf and dumb. However, according to her further statement hey father could make other understand by signs that she was his daughter and that so and so was his wife. She further states that suit was instituted by her on behalf of Gehru and that Devku was never married her father. 19. Lal Chatid and Kundan Singh, PWs. However, according to her further statement hey father could make other understand by signs that she was his daughter and that so and so was his wife. She further states that suit was instituted by her on behalf of Gehru and that Devku was never married her father. 19. Lal Chatid and Kundan Singh, PWs. 2 and 3 endorsed PWs 1 statement to the extent that Gehru was deaf and dumb and that he could only indicate that he wanted to eat and further that he could not convey by signs and gestures everything that he wanted to do. However, FW-2 controverted PW-1 by saying that Gehru was not in a position to make other understand that such and such woman was his daughter whereas the other was his wife and yet a third one as his mother or sister and further that be himself did not know that such and such woman was his daughter and other was his wife. 20. PW-3 contradicted PW-1 when he states that Devku was the wife of Gehru He has also endorsed the statement of PW-2. However, both these witnesses have admitted that land belonging to Gehru was given to them, i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 by Smt. Sobhi, the general attorney of her husband Gehru by creating tenancy rights in his (PW-2) favour and over the land belonging to Gehru and 3-1/2 bighas of Gebrus land in lieu of the work done by him (PW-3) respectively. In other words these two witnesses admit that Smt, Sobhi wife of late Sh. Gehru was managing, alienating or transferring the land belonged to her husband Gebru at the material time to the knowledge of Smt. Sevti and Smt. Devku aforesaid. 21. PW-4 Thakur Beli Ram Advocate, admits that he was the member of the Legislative Assembly/Council at the material time but he denies the factum of having introduced Gehru to Dr. Manjit Singh DW-10 for the purpose of issuance of medical certificate D-3. 22. It would be pertinent to note that Smt. Devku did not appear as a witness in the main case though she did appear at the time of the enquiry made on her application of forma pauperis under Order 33 Rule I G. P. C. Another fact divulged from the statement of Smt. Kimtu PW-l was that her mother Smt. Sevti expired in the year 1967-68, This power of attorney (Ex. D-2) was executed by late Sh. Gehru on 4-10-1962. This is the entire evidence. 23. The test of soundness of mind is that he is capable of understanding the business and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest. There being a presumption in favour of sanity, the person who relfes on the unsoundness of mind must prove it sufficiently to satisfy this test. Mere weakness of mind is not sufficient. Section 11 of the Contract Act speaks of in competency to make a contract. It says that "Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject." For the present purpose, I have to find out, what is the meaning of "sound mind.9 Section 12 of the Act attempts to define what is the meaning of sound mind’ and it reads thus: "A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest," The crucial point, therefore, is to find out whether Gehru executed the general power of attorney i. e., entered into the contract after he had understood it and has decided to enter into that contract after forming a rational judgment in regard to his interest ;i e to say, whether the contract he entered into was to his benefit and advantage. 24. On the basis of the above said evidence, learned Counsel for the defendants has submitted that there is presumption of sanity in favour of a person and in view of that fact onus is very light upon the defendants to prove this fact. Ordinarily a party who claims a person to be of unsound mind or lunatic or an idiot, is first of all obliged to lay down the foundation in pleadings and then adduce some proof on record in that behalf and in case such party prima facie succeeds in doing so then only onus shifts upon the opposite party to prove that such person is sane and capable of understanding/watching his interest. He then points out, firstly, that there is no pleadings of lunacy and a person of low intellect as pleaded, is not a lunatic; secondly, that PW 1 is a relation witness and she was aged about 2 to 3 years at the time the general power of attorney was executed and got registered and thus she is not a reliable witness; thirdly, that PW-2 is the brother of Bhagat Ram who initiated the instant suit and financed the litigation. Both he and PW-3 have obtained immoveable property through Smt Sobhi, the general attorney of late Shri Gehru and they cannot now agitate that Gehru was an idiot or a lunatic. Thus their evidence is neither sufficient nor reliable ; fourthly, that there is a specific allegation of Gehru being of low intelligence only which at the most mean that Gehru was suffering from mental weakness but it does not indicate that he could not understand or safeguard his interest ; fifthly, that factum of previous litigation not being in existence is not relevant to the fact in issue Even no evidence was required in that respect, and so is the case of tenancy rights which were in existence at the material time Lastly, according to him, defendants are strangers and they have got no connection with the plaintiff or his family- Thus the above said facts coupled with the testimony of DWs 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10, referred to above indicate that Gehru was not suffering from any legal disability. Rather he was competent to sell the land himself or through his genera) attorney. It has been pointed out that witnesses are being examined after sufficiently long time. Had general power of attorney been challenged or legal proceedings initiated for its cancellation within the specific period of limitation of three years, it could have been said that Smt. Sevti the wife of late Shri Gebru and mother of PW-1 as also Smt. Devku, her sister were keen to safeguard the interest of Gehru aforesaid. They having not taken such steps their conduct cements the presumption of sanity vis-a-vis Gehru. 25. They having not taken such steps their conduct cements the presumption of sanity vis-a-vis Gehru. 25. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff in reply contended that the circumstances indicated in the general power of attorney (D-2) are contrary to the existence of the factual facts mentioned therein inasmuch as that there is no evidence to show as to the existence of litigation prior to the giving of power of attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi ; secondly, that different sales effected by Smt. Sobhi as general attorney of late Shri Gehru during his life time though not challenged, shows that her husband Shri Gehru was unable to understand the business so transactioa or its impact upon his interest; thirdly, that the reason why medical certificate D-3 was obtained and annexed with the general power of attorney at the time of its registration, thus indicate that Gehru was suffering from mental defectedness ; fourthly, that not only Gehru but his wife Smt Sobhi was also illiterate ; fifthly, that contents of D-2 read with D-3 though produced before the Registration Officer, yet both he and the Medical Expert knew that Gehru was insane person ; sixthly, that the testimony of Thakur Bell Ram Advocate denying having introduced Gehru to Dr. Manjit Singh, DW-10, also shows that power of attorney D-2 was registered surreptitiously ; seventhly, that entire land so purchased by defendants No. 11 and 12 through defendant No 1 ‘benami’ was under tenants His farther argument is that even if there is deficiency in pleadings, the fact has to be read with the evidence All these factors taken together and read with testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 show that Gehru was an idiot/lunatic and was unable to give such power of attorney to his wife Smt. Sobhi, that could only have been obtained with the permission of the Court. 26. Turning to the facts emerged from the evidence adduced by both the parties, obviously, Smt Devku who initiated the instant Us and who claimed to be the wife of late Shri Gehru having married him for the last more than 40 years, was the best person to throw light upon the mental capacity of the plaintiff. She has not appeared as a witness. She has not appeared as a witness. Only Smt. Kimtu who was aged about 2/3 years at the material time, has stepped into the witness box but she too has admitted in her deposition as PW-l that her father Gehru used to understand by signs. According to her further admission in cross-examination, said Gehru was capable of identifying his daughter or his wife etc. though he could not express himself likewise to others. Smt. Sobhi the general attorney entered into several transactions of sale to different persons to the knowledge of Smt. Devku and Smt. Sevti between the period 1962 to 1971 Said Smt Sevti admitted to have died m the year 1967-68 and Smt Sobhi expired in the year 1973, as it emerges from the record Smt. Devku, Sevti and Smt. Sobhi were related as sisters to each other. Smt. Devku claimed to have resided with Gehru during this time She did not take any legal steps to challenge either the general power of attorney or any one of the sales made by Smt, Sobhi her sister to third party during the tatters life time. Even creation of tenancy rights by Smt. Sobhi in favour of defendants 2 to 6 has been taken as such and though challenged but relief of possession has been given up during the pendency of this suit. PWs 2 and 3, namely, Lal Chand and Kundan Singh also state to have obtained landed property belonging to Gehru through Smt. Sobhi much subsequent to the execution of the aforesaid general power of attorney D-2. No challenge has been thrown to said property by the plaintiff. The suit in forma-pauperis was filed on 7-8-1980, i.e , after about 18 years after the execution of the general power of attorney. This instrument is a registered one DWs are strangers. No allegation has been made by the plaintiff as to when he did come to know of the sale of the instant property for the first time. Even Smt Kimtu had attained majority in the year 1974-75. She claims to have filed the instant suit for and on behalf of Sh. Gehru which fact on the face of it is untrue. Even Smt Kimtu had attained majority in the year 1974-75. She claims to have filed the instant suit for and on behalf of Sh. Gehru which fact on the face of it is untrue. Further it is to be noted that no suggestion as to the collusion between the executant or Smt, Sobhi or other marginal witnesses or the then Naib-Tehsiltiar-cum-Sub-Registrar Kullu has been pleaded nor such fact stands proved by any iota of evidence. These strangers have no interest in either party. Under section 85 of the Evidence %ct, the power of attorney as well as its verification are to be presumed to be true and correct. The authentication is not merely an attestation but something more. It means that the person authenticating has assured himself of the identity of the person who has signed the instrument as well as the fact of execution. Procedure as laid down under sections 58 to 6) of the Registration Act are presumed to have been complied with. In that view of the matter such a power of attorney becomes valid both under section 85 of the Evidence Act as also section 33 of the Registration Act. 27. Thus judging the entire facts and circumstances discussed above with the touch-stone of legal principles referred to above, to my mind, defendants have succeeded in proving that late Sh. Gehru was though deaf and dumb but a capable person of understanding his interest In other words general power of attorney D-2 executed by him in favour of his wife Smt. Sobhi is legal and valid. Issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 2 to 4, 7,12, 14, 16 and 17 : 28. As observed above, these issues have not been pressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, therefore, all issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 18 29. Under this issue plaintiff is obliged to prove whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Courts fee and jurisdiction. In this respect he has valued the suit in respect of prayer (A) to the tune of Rs. 2,13,500 on the basis of the prevailing market value of the orchard to be Rs 10,000 per bigha and prayer (B) i.e., mesne-profits to the tune of Rs 50,000 and prayer (C) pertaining to the relief of mandatory injunction directing them to pay the rent to the plaintiff at Rs. 10,000. 2,13,500 on the basis of the prevailing market value of the orchard to be Rs 10,000 per bigha and prayer (B) i.e., mesne-profits to the tune of Rs 50,000 and prayer (C) pertaining to the relief of mandatory injunction directing them to pay the rent to the plaintiff at Rs. 10,000. The objection raised by the opposite party at the time of arguments is that a house existed on the disputed land and as the suit has been filed for possession, plaintiff has not valued the house nor paid any court-fee thereupon. However, perusal of the pleadings show that the only objection raised is that the suit has been over-valued. How and in what manner, there is no evidence on record adduced by the defendants in this respect. On the other hand, in enquiry as to whether the applicant was an indigent person as envisaged under Order 33, as per the report of the then Deputy Commissioner, Kullu the average prevailing market value of land measuring 1.1312 bighas situate in Phati Nathan belonging to the plaintiff comes to Rs. 20,759,80. In other words, the prevailing market value of the land on 16-12-1991 just after the filing of the suit was just above Rs. 12,000 per bigha. Thus calculating the market value in view of the entire evidence, the above said evidence read with statement of PW-l Kimtu, who stated the market value of the orchard per bigha Rs. 20,000 in the year 1986, to my mind, suit had properly been valued for the purpose of courts fee and jurisdiction. Issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 5 : 30. Under discussion of issue No. 9, it has already been held that general power of attorney executed by Shri Gehru in favour of his wife Sobhi is legal and valid document. It has also been held that said Gehru was not suffering from any legal disability. Admittedly, Shri Gehru was major at the material time. He had not initiated any legal steps for challenging the power of attorney or any sale transacted by Smt. Sobhi, his wife at any time during his life time Rather he had acquiesced in the business so conducted by Smt. Sobhi. In that view of the matter, he himself was the only person who could have filed the suit. He had not initiated any legal steps for challenging the power of attorney or any sale transacted by Smt. Sobhi, his wife at any time during his life time Rather he had acquiesced in the business so conducted by Smt. Sobhi. In that view of the matter, he himself was the only person who could have filed the suit. Smt. Devku could not represent him as his next friend Thus from whatsoever angle it may be viewed, to my mind, the plaintiff was estopped from filing the instant suit by his act of omission, commission and acquiescence. Issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 6 s 31. This issue pertains to limitation. Admittedly, the period of limitation for getting a registered document cancelled is three years. Also the limitation for filing a suit for possession is 12 years. 32. In the instant case initially the suit was filed for possession of the disputed land which was put under the tenancy of defendants No. 2 to 6. In other words, defendants No. 2 to 6 were in actual possession of the suit land at the time when the suit was filed. The plaintiff has sought the relief in the shape of a decree for possession of the suit land besides mesne-profits for use and occupation thereof for the last 15 years as prayed for in reliefs (A) and (B) respectively. Apart from it, plaintiff had sought a mandatory injunction against defendants No 2 to 6 to pay future rents in respect of the suit land under their tenancy to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff through their learned Counsel had made a statement on 25th November, 1986 and gave up defendants No 2 to 6 as also relief so claimed against them which culminated into the deletion of their names. Limitation for filing the suit for possession is 12 years. Admittedly the instant suit has been filed on 7-11-1980, i.e., beyond 12 years. Thus from whatsoever angle the facts be viewed, they coupled with the findings arrived at under issue No. 9, make out the suit to be patently time barred. This issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 8: 33. The onus of this issue has been placed on defendants but the frame thereof indicates that it should have been placed on plaintiff. Thus from whatsoever angle the facts be viewed, they coupled with the findings arrived at under issue No. 9, make out the suit to be patently time barred. This issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 8: 33. The onus of this issue has been placed on defendants but the frame thereof indicates that it should have been placed on plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that Gehru was born deaf and dumb and he was a person of low intelligence to such an extent that he could not understand his interest which claim has been controverted by the defendants Smt. Kimtu PW-1 has appeared to say so but no reliable evidence has been produced on record to show that said Gehru was suffering from mental infirmity. Plaintiff claimed that Gehru was an idiot/lunatic and he was not empowered to give any power of attorney to his wife Smt. Sobhi Section 3 (5) of the Lunatic Act defines the term Lunatic’ as under : — Lunatic" means an idiot or person of unsound mind." 34. Even mental disorder is synonymous with idiocy. At the same time a lunatic is not a person who is continuously in a state of unsoundness of mind and once it has been established that a person is a lunatic, the burden of proof then shifts on the party who alleges that a document he relies on as having been executed by the alleged lunatic was executed by him during lucid intervals. Without repeating the discussion of evidence which has already been so done under issue No. 9, suffice it to state that plaintiff has simply been able to prove that Gehru was deaf and dumb but whether he was so from the time of his birth or whether he was of such low intelligence that he could not understand the impact of transactions transacted by him or his attorney, remains unproved. The plaintiff has not shown any such previous conduct of Gehru whereby it could be said that he was a lunatic or an idiot or was suffering from any mental infirmity which could be held so in the eye of law. There is no evidence on record as to whether Gehru had suffered ailment earlier to the year 1962 and if so whether he was treated. There is no evidence on record as to whether Gehru had suffered ailment earlier to the year 1962 and if so whether he was treated. On the other hand the statement of DW-10 coupled with DW Hardip Singh, speciflcally point out that Gehru could understand his acts. He could identify his daughter, his wife. There is only oral evidence of his daughter in the instant case. Even Smt. Devku as stated above has not stepped into the witness box to say so. No person who had a long association with Gehru has come forward to state that Gehru was suffering from legal disability Thus in view of the evidence no other conclusion except the one can be drawn that Gehru was sensible person, capable of understanding and safeguarding his interest This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issues No. 10, 11 and 13: 35. All these issues are inter-connected and can conveniently disposed of together. 36. I have already observed above that the power of attorney D2 was legal and valid document which empowered Smt. Sobhi wife of Gehru since deceased to transact sales for and on behalf of her husband, As such sale deed dated 28-4-1965 effected in favour of defendants No 11 and 12 through defendant No 1 is a legal and valid sale and accordingly the said sale document is effective in the eye of law. Now defendants No. 11 and 12 do not claim any interest in the suit property and also issue No 12 has been given up by the plaintiff. Thus it is held that the sale vide sale deed dated 28-4-1965 so effected in favour of defendant Mo. 1 who become absolute owner thereof and he was competent to further sell the suit land or any portion thereof in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 10, for valuable consideration as such said defendants are bonafide transferees and question on either of them having become owners by adverse possession does not arise. All issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 15: 37. Onus of this issue is upon the plaintiff. No evidence has been adduced as such this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 18: 38. All issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 15: 37. Onus of this issue is upon the plaintiff. No evidence has been adduced as such this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 18: 38. Under discussion of other issues referred to above, it has been held that Gehru was competent to challenge the power of attorney and the sale made therein. He has already expired during the pendency of the suit, Smt. Devku though filed the suit as next friend of late Sh. Gehru but ultimately she has not stepped in the witness box for reasons best known to her. Defendants No. 11 and 12 have not claimed any interest regarding the ownership and possession in the property from the very beginning and they have not put in appearance. It is only defendant No 1 who has contested the suit who also hails from village of the plaintiff Land in dispute has been in possession of defendant No. I throughout and he has been reaping the fruit thereof. Thus taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances emerging from the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the absence of any other evidence on record, defendants No. 1, 11 and 12 are not entitled to any special costs as claimed. Issue is decided accordingly. Issues framed on 24-4-1985; Issue No. 1: 39. There had been litigation in between the parties earlier too, titled as Devku and another v. Rama Dogra and others, ILR 1985 (HP Series) 896. Therein the question was whether Smt Devku was the legally wedded wife and as such the widow of Gehru since deceased. In that case it was held that Smt. Devku aforesaid was not clothed with the status of a legally wedded wife of Gehru and as such she is not his legal representative and could not maintain the suit in that capacity. 40. In the instant case said Smt. Devku has not appeared as her own witness in the main suit. In the enquiry on forma-pauperis application she did prove two documents pertaining to be the divorce documents and document pertaining to her re-marriage with Gehru. She had stated that she sought divorce and then married Ram Ditta and later again re-married Gehru. In the instant case said Smt. Devku has not appeared as her own witness in the main suit. In the enquiry on forma-pauperis application she did prove two documents pertaining to be the divorce documents and document pertaining to her re-marriage with Gehru. She had stated that she sought divorce and then married Ram Ditta and later again re-married Gehru. Both these documents were executed in accordance with Kullu Customary Law which was applicable to them and according to it both these documents were legally and validly executed. However, the case set up by the plaintiff before this Court is that said Gehru was an idiot and lunatic and was incapable of understanding his interest. This plea is contrary to the one exhibited by the above said two documents. If he was incapable of understanding his interest, he could not have executed the deed of divorce or deed of marriage. This conduct of Gehru established in enquiry of this case also re-enforces the defendants plea that Gehru was a sane person capable of understanding the impact of transaction transacted by him personally or through his attorney. Even otherwise said Gehru had contracted marriage twice. None of these wives had ever complained to any authority regarding the insanity or idiocy or lunacy of Gehru aforesaid. Thus in the absence of any other convincing evidence on record and also in view of the earlier decision, the issue is decided against Smt. Devku, the next friend of the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 2: 41. In earlier discussion, it has been held that the instant suit is not a validly instituted suit as Gehru himself was competent to file the same. He was sane person capable of entering into contract and watching his interest. Smt Kimtu the daughter of the plaintiff Gehru has been substituted as such during the pendency of the suit. It has been held that a suit is not a validly constituted one in the eye of law in view of the discussion made above. Thus Smt. Kimtu is not entitled to maintain the suit or continue with it. The issue is decided accordingly. Relief: In view of the discussion made above, the plaintiff fails and the suit is dismissed with proportionate costs. Order accordingly.