JUDGMENT D P Sood, J.—Smt. Devkoo as next friend of Sh. Gehru has instituted the instant suit in forma pauprris. Said Smt. Devkoo stated herself to be his wife having no interest adverse to Shri Gehru and. therefore, a fit person to act as his next friend Unsoundness of mind/idiocy of said Sh Gehru is the major nevertheless an interesting basic question amongst others which has arisen for determination of this Court. As per the averments of the plaintiff, Shri Gehru was a deaf and dumb person possessing low Intelligence and he suffered disability at all material times throughout namely, at the time of execution of General Power of Attorney, and two alienations under challenge dated 4-10-1962 (Ex. D-2) and 31-7-1971 (Ex. D-l). Shri Gehru died during the pendency of the suit in the year 1983 and his legal representatives namely, Smt Oevkoo, who was acting as his next friend and Smt. Kimtu, his daughter, have been substituted in his place subject to just legal exceptions, 2. In the plaint the two alienations referred to above have been assailed on the ground of sale being without consideration and in competency of said Shri Gehru to enter into a legal contract. Besides his General Attorney Smt Sobhi, his wife being not legally authorised to sell the land under the aforesaid two sale-deeds. The additional ground for assailing the second sale dated 31 -7-1971 (Ex. D-l) has been alleged to be the result of collusion in between Smt. Sobhi, the seller and Shri Charan Dass Dogra, the buyer. It is further alleged that the first sale dated 4-10-1962 (vide Ex. D-2) pertaining to 112 bighas was for ostensible consideration of Rs. 6,000 and that of second sale dated 31-7-1971 (vide Ex. D-l) pertaining to 4.10 bigbas for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 20,000 but said vendee Shri Charan Dass Dogra in partition got himself allotted land to the extent of ) 2. 10 bighas instead of 4.10 bigbas in collusion with Smt. Sobhi, the plaintiff. Besides, plaintiff has further averred thar the said vendee had firstly, knowledge that the General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi was null and void ab-initio on account of disability suffered by Shri Gehru aforesaid and second, that in such circumstances no permission of the Court for selling the land indispute had been sought for. Besides, plaintiff has further averred thar the said vendee had firstly, knowledge that the General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi was null and void ab-initio on account of disability suffered by Shri Gehru aforesaid and second, that in such circumstances no permission of the Court for selling the land indispute had been sought for. As per the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 28-8-1962 when General Power of Attorney was executed by Shri Gehru in favour of his wife Smt. Sobhi, on 4-10-1962 when sale-deed Ex. D-2 was executed by Smt Sobhi in favour of Shri Charan Dass Dogra and 31-7-1971 when second sale-deed was executed by the said General Attorney in favour of Sh. Charan Dass Dogra aforesaid. 3. Defendants are legal representatives of late Sh. Charan Dass Dogra, an Advocate. They have resisted and contested the suit on legal grounds by raising preliminary objections with respect to locus standi of Smt. Devkoo as next friend, valuation, limitation, maintainability of the suit, mis-joinder of causes of action and estoppel. 4. As this stage, it is pertinent to detail that vis-a-vis the legal grounds the defendants have specifically contended that neither General Power of Attorney nor partition proceedings nor cancellation of registrered sale-deeds have been assailed by the plaintiff. Further, according to them the term disability as used in paragraph-9 of the plaint has intentionally been added merely for taking advantage of section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On merits, it has been contended that the disability allegedly suffered by Shri Gehru aforesaid pertains to the date of filing the suit on 10-8-1982 as is evident from allegations in paragraph 1 of the plaint and net to the material dates referred to above. On merits, it has been contended that the disability allegedly suffered by Shri Gehru aforesaid pertains to the date of filing the suit on 10-8-1982 as is evident from allegations in paragraph 1 of the plaint and net to the material dates referred to above. According to them said Shri Gehru was legally competent person to contract and his disability was confined to merely his being a deaf and dumb person of low intelligence that is to say he is contended to be capable of fully understanding his interest at the relevant time the defendants, predecessor-in-interest purchased the land through the Attorney of said Shri Gehru It is then contended that the land purchased vide aforesaid documents by the vendee was vacant at the material time and substantial improvements incurring expenditure by way of orchard has been effected by them Alternatively, it is contended that in case both the sales are held to be illegal, the defendants have become owner by way of adverse possession. 5. In his replication, the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and statement. He specifically denied the fact that Shri Bhagat Ram was financing the litigation. Further it was asserted that plaintiff Shri Gehru had always continued to be a person under legal disability. Another assertion made by him was that defendants and their predecessor-in-interest have derived benefits much in excess of their expenditure incurred by them in making improvement on the suit land. It would be pertinent to detail that this replication was filed to the un-amended written statement only. No replication to the amended written statement was filed on the ground that the contention so raised by the defendants were already refuted and covered in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties and keeping in view the subsequent events which happened during the pendency of the suit, the following issues were framed on 21-5-1984, 17-7-1984, and 2S-8-IV84 respectively : 21-5-1984. 1. Whether Smt. Devkoo and Smt. Kimtu, are the legal representatives of Shri Gehru, deceased and right to sue survives in them, as alleged? OPP. 17-7-1984. 1. Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purpose of court-tee and jurisdiction? OPP. 2. Whether the plaint does not disclose an enforceable cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged by the defendants? OPD. 4. OPP. 17-7-1984. 1. Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purpose of court-tee and jurisdiction? OPP. 2. Whether the plaint does not disclose an enforceable cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged by the defendants? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his acts of omission, commissions and acquiescence? OtD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 7. Whether Shri Gehru (now deceased) was a deaf and dumb person and of low intelligence. If so, with what effect? OPD. 8. Whether Smt. Sobhi was authorised to execute the disputed sale-deeds on behalf of Gehru deceased? OPD—Objected to. 9. If Issue No, 8 is proved, whether the sale-deeds executed by Smt Sobhi on behalf of Gehru deceased are null and void, as alleged ? OPP. 10. If Issue No. 8 is proved in favour of defendants and Issue No 9 in favour of the plaintiff then whether the defendants have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession, as alleged ? OPD. 11. Whether Smt. Devkoo was not a fit person to act as a next friend of Gehru deceased for filing the present suit. If so, its effect ? OPD. Objected to. 12. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs ? OPD. 13. Relief. 28-8-1984 1. Whether Smt. Devkoo is the legally wedded wife and as such the widow of Gehru deceased, as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether Smt. Kimtu is estopped from filing the present suit by acquiescence as alleged in para 2 (b) of the additional pleas of the amended written statement ? OPD. Issues No. 1 (As framed on 21-5-1984 and 25-8-1984). 7. In an earlier litigation between the same parties, namely, Devkoo and another v. Rama Dogra and others, 1985 1L.R (HP Series) 896, the question whether Smt. Devkoo is the legally wedded wife and as such the widow of Gehru, since deceased, was directly and substantially in issue. In that case it was held that Smt Devkoo 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. In that case it was held that Smt Devkoo 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. In other words Smt. Devkoo had miserably failed to prove her status to be that of a widow of late Shri Gehru. 8. Independently of that decision, parties have adduced evidence in the instant suit. Smt. Devkoo appearing as PW-i claimed that she was married to late Sh. Gehru more than 40 years ago and that through this legal wedlock she gave birth to a daughter who died at the age of 2-1/2 years. She further stated that thereafter she did not deliver any child. However, in her cross examination she stated on oath that as per custom prevailing in their area, a stamped document duly executed in between the parties, is sufficient to witness the marriage. She then admitted that such like stamped document was executed in between her and Ram Ditta regarding the performance of her marriage with him and she stayed for a period of five years with him Later she admitted that in her earlier suit she had admitted to have lived with said Ram Ditta for about seven years as his wife. She was also confronted with her earlier statement Ex. PW 1/X-l portion A to A to the effect that she had admitted that after about 18/19 years of her marriage with Gehru, she had left his house and married one Ram Ditta. To a court question, she then stated that after her divorce with Ram Ditta she again married Gebru deceased. She further admitted that she had executed a deed on stamp paper when she left the house of late Shri Gehru to marry Ram Ditta aforesaid. In her earlier statement Ex. PW—1/X-A portion B to B she had also admitted that at the time of execution of her deed of divorce both she and Gehru had thumb-marked that document. Onus to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Gehru was upon the plaintiff. The testimony of PW-l Smt Devkoo is of divergent nature which shows that earlier she was married to Gehru but later she obtained divorce from him and married Ram Ditta. Onus to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Gehru was upon the plaintiff. The testimony of PW-l Smt Devkoo is of divergent nature which shows that earlier she was married to Gehru but later she obtained divorce from him and married Ram Ditta. There is no evidence of her subsequent marriage with late Shri Gehru So from whatsoever angle her testimony be viewed, she has not proved herself to be a legally wedded wife of Shri Gehru. Even PW-2 Smt. Kimtu, daughter of late Shri Gehru has categorically stated that PW-l was her fathers sister and she used to visit her fathers house occasionally However, she does not support the version put forth by Smt. Devkoo. Thus there is no cogent, consistent or convincing evidence on record to show that Smt. Pevkoo PW-l was the legally wedded wife of Shri Gehru, since now deceased, and as such she cannot be termed as legal representative of said Shri Gehru in that capacity. 9. So far as Smt. Kimtu defendant is concerned her status as a daughter of Shri Gehru has not been disputed by the contesting defendants. In that view of the matter Smt. Kimtu is the legal heir/legal representative of Gehru. 10. Admittedly Gehru died during the pendency of the suit. Smt. Devkoo had filed the instant suit as the next friend of Gehru, claiming herself to be his wife on the ground that he was a deaf and dumb, illiterate person possessing low intelligence and he suffered this disability throughout. There is no gain-saying the fact that under Order 32 Rule 15 C P. C. Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) apply to person adjudged before or during the pendency of the suit to be of un-sound mind and also to those persons who, though not so adjudged are found by the Court on enquiry, to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. In other words, Smt. Devkoo was entitled to file the suit on behalf of Gehru as his next friend in view of her pleadings. 11. In the instant suit the only evidence which has come on record is that Gehru was a deaf and dumb person and he could understand the language of signs and further that he was illiterate as per the statements of PWs 1 and 2. 11. In the instant suit the only evidence which has come on record is that Gehru was a deaf and dumb person and he could understand the language of signs and further that he was illiterate as per the statements of PWs 1 and 2. There is not even a single word about such disability of the plaintiff continuing from his birth nor there is any evidence to show that he could not understand his interest. In that view of the matter Gehru did not suffer from any legal disability. Be was a person of sound mind capable of understand/watching his own interests. Thus this suit could not have been filed by Smt Devkoo as next friend of Gehru. Even otherwise the plaintiff has expired in the year 1984 as such no right to sue is proved to have survived to Smt. Devkoo in any capacity. So far as Smt. Kimtu is concerned, the suit was not filed by late Shri Gehru, challenging the sale in question by her father late Shri Gehru and as such no right to sue survived in her favour too. The aforesaid issues are, thus, decided accordingly. Issue No 2 (As framed on 25-8-1984) 12. Smt. Kimtu is, admittedly, the daughter of Gehru (since deceased). She had attained majority in the year 1974-75. She had filed a suit against the defendants in her individual capacity seeking relief of getting possession of a portion of the property belonging to her. The aforesaid sales made by Smt. Sobhi were to her knowledge. Further, she knew that said Smt. Sobhi was acting under a Power of Attorney executed by Gehru. She did not take any step to get that Power of Attorney rD-8) cancelled. Sales of the property belonging to Gehru had also been effected in favour of many other persons to her knowledge. She had thus acquised in the conduct of Smt Sobhi who expired in the year 1973-74. Even she did not file the instant suit. It was brought by Smt. Devkoo. She had been substituted as legal representative. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances she is estopped from filing the present suit. Even otherwise under discussion of issue Nos 7 to 9, hereinafter, Gehru has been held to be a sane person capable of entering into a contract. He has not challenged the acts committed of sales transacted by his wife Smt. Sobhi. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances she is estopped from filing the present suit. Even otherwise under discussion of issue Nos 7 to 9, hereinafter, Gehru has been held to be a sane person capable of entering into a contract. He has not challenged the acts committed of sales transacted by his wife Smt. Sobhi. Thus, in this view of the matter too, Smt. Kimtu cannot file the instant suit. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of defendants. Issue No. 1 (As framed on 17-7-1984) 13. Learned Counsel for the defendants has given up the objection with respect to the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at the time of addressing arguments. Even otherwise the suit has been valued at Rs. 4,00 lacs for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction It is to be noted that total land under challenge is 23 bighas 12 biswas This suit was filed in a forma pauperis by the plaintiff through Smt. Devkoo, his next friend. On enquiry as per an affidavit filed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, the average price of the land measuring l-U-12 bighas was found to be Rs. 20,759,80. In other words, the average prevailing value of the land was Rs. 12.000 plus per bigha. Orchard has been planted on the disputed land. Thus in that view of the matter too, the market value has properly been assessed for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. I bold so. this issue is, thus decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 14. Learned Counsel for the defendants has submitted that no challenge to general power of attorney executed by Gehru in favour of his wife Smt Sobhi has been made in the suit, that two sales were effected by the General Attorney in favour of the predecessor-in interest of defendants on 4-10-1962 (D-2) and 13-7-1971 (D-l) respectively. Thus Power of Attorney being a legal and a valid document, the two sales so affected were legal and valid. Thus no enforceable cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff and he has no right to file the suit. 15. Cause of action constitutes of bundle of facts averred in the plaint and it has to be ascertained therefrom by reading its contents as a whole. 16. Thus no enforceable cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff and he has no right to file the suit. 15. Cause of action constitutes of bundle of facts averred in the plaint and it has to be ascertained therefrom by reading its contents as a whole. 16. As observed above, the suit has been filed on the ground that Gehru was a deaf and dumb person possessing low intelligence and he suffered this disability at all material times. In other words, he was unable to safeguard his interest. Thus in view of these allegations cause of action did arise to the plaintiff and irrespective of the penultimate findings required to be arrived at by this Court In this view of the mater. Issue No. 2 is decided against the defendants. Issues No. 3 and 5 17. The issues are inter-connected and can be conveniently dealt with together. 18. Learned Counsel for the defendants has depended upon Order 2 Rules 3 and 4 C P. C. Rule 3 deals with joinder of cause of action in as much as that where there is only one plaintiff and only one defendant, the plaintiff may unite in the same suit, several causes of action against the same defendant, provided, of course, the provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of this order, are not contravened. In other words, if the cause of action are so disconnected that they cannot be conveniently tried together, the Court may order separate trial under Rule 6. Now Rule 4 lays down as under: "4. No Cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except— (a) claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held ; and (c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action. 19. In other words it declares that no claim other than those specified in three exceptions shall be joined without the leave of the Court with a suit for the recovery of immovable property". The object of this Rule is to prevent a joinder of the claim for the recovery of the immoveable property or claims of other and dis-similar character. In other words it declares that no claim other than those specified in three exceptions shall be joined without the leave of the Court with a suit for the recovery of immovable property". The object of this Rule is to prevent a joinder of the claim for the recovery of the immoveable property or claims of other and dis-similar character. This rule does not apply to a joinder of several claims of immovable property without the leave of the Court. 20. In the instant suit, suit is for recovery of immoveable property pursuant to two sales alleged to be ab-initio void and on two different occasions. The grounds for challenging the two sales is the same. Thus there appears to be no infirmity in maintaining the suit in view of the assertions made in the plaint. It is another thing whether plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not. The suit is maintainable and there appears to be no mis-joinder of cause of action in the instant suit. Both the issues are decided against the defendants. Issue No. 4 21. Admittedly, the plaintiff has sold the land not only to the defendants, but also to various other persons, namely late Smt. Radha Devi, Smt. Lachhi Devi and Madan Lal. All these sales were effected by Smt. Sobbi, the general attorney of late Shri Gehru for and on his behalf in between the period from 1962 to 1971 as per the deposition of Smt Rama Dogra (DW-1) No doubt, plaintiff has attempted to show that the sale in favour of Madan Lal made in the year ; 1962 was not a valid one and was Benami’ in favour of captain Gurdarshan Singh, but nothing has been stated about the other sales, nor Smt. Devkoo the next friend of the plaintiff, has deposed that any legal step for getting the aforesaid sales as illegal/invalid or to take possession of the property, have been initiated. Apart from this fact collusion with respect to the sales under challenge in between Smt. Sobhi and predecessor-in-interest of the defendants has been alleged, but no evidence has been adduced to prove the said fact. Also general power of attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi executed by her husband late Shri Gehru has not been challenged. Apart from this fact collusion with respect to the sales under challenge in between Smt. Sobhi and predecessor-in-interest of the defendants has been alleged, but no evidence has been adduced to prove the said fact. Also general power of attorney in favour of Smt. Sobhi executed by her husband late Shri Gehru has not been challenged. The argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in that the plaintiff was suffering from legal disability in the sense that the was an idiot or a lunatic. Now here it has been alleged that plaintiff was suffering from this disability at the time when the aforesaid power of Attorney was executed by Gehru In favour of Smt. Sobhi Even reading of paras No. 1 and 9 of the plaint refers to disability at all material time, i.e. effecting the sales on 4-10-1962 and 31-7-1971 only, but no convincing evidence has been adduced to that effect also. Even according to her own testimony Smt Devkoo (DW-1) coupled with that of defendants (DWs 1, , 6, 7 and 11, it is proved that Late Shri Gehru was capable of understanding the language of signs, though he was deaf and dumb This fact is cemented by her admission that deed of divorce was executed by Gehru in her (Smt. Devkoos) favour and thereafter she married Ram Ditta. Had Gehru been lunatic, he could not have released Devkoo by executing such a document much prior to the execution of Power of Attorney. This conduct of Smt Devkoo alone belies her stand now taken in the pleadings. In that view of the matter, late Shri Gehru was a sane person capable of understanding his interests and that is why he did not raise any objection to the sales effected by his wife. Rather he acquiesed in the acts committed by his general attorney Thus, reading the evidence as a whole. I hold that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his acts of omissions, commissions and acquiescence. Issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 6 and 11 22. Both these issues are interconnected, as such, it would be proper to dispose of them together. 23. Challenge by the plaintiff has been made to, to two sale-deeds dated 4-10-1962 and 31-7-1971 (Ex. D-2 and D-l) after a period of 20 years and 11 years respectively. Issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 6 and 11 22. Both these issues are interconnected, as such, it would be proper to dispose of them together. 23. Challenge by the plaintiff has been made to, to two sale-deeds dated 4-10-1962 and 31-7-1971 (Ex. D-2 and D-l) after a period of 20 years and 11 years respectively. Suit for possession has been filed on 10-8-1982 Also both the transactions have been entered into by Smt. Sobhi General Attorney of Gehru The suit pertaining to the first transaction is prima facie beyond limitation. However, according to the averments made in the pleadings, the plaintiff was under legal disability. 24. Now limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of a title is 12 years However, in case of disability, the limitation is extended by three years, when such disability ceases. This is a combined effect of reading the section 6 to 8 of the Limitation Act. 1963. In fact section 6 refers to a person who is a minor, insane, or an idiat and who is entitled to institute a suit. It confers benefits on such disabled person so far as the right to sue or make an application for execution of the decree is concerned. It is well recognised general principle that lapse of time bars only the remedy, but does not extinguish the right Thus; reading sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation Act together the principle recogaised, is that where, for a suit for possession, the time expires, it will automatically extinguish the right alongwith the remedy to recover the possession. In other words, both the right and the remedy to get back the possession of the property are lost. Thus, in case of disabled person, sections 6 to 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only applies when the disability is in existence at the time when the limitation begins to run but time is not saved where disability does not exist at the point on which limitation begins to run. In other words. If limitation once starts, it never stops despite subsequent disability. It has been laid down in a series of cases that only disabilities which save the operation of the Limitation Act and those which are created by this statute itself. In other words. If limitation once starts, it never stops despite subsequent disability. It has been laid down in a series of cases that only disabilities which save the operation of the Limitation Act and those which are created by this statute itself. This being so, and it being well recognised that the statute of limitation is strict and inflexible and its provisions are not susceptible of equitable construction. It is difficult to hold that in view of the discussion made under Issues No. 7 to 9 above, late Shri Gehru was a person suffering from legal disability. 25. It is true that pleadings in this country are generally defective and carelessly drawn and- it is not always conducive to justice to draw an adverse inference against a party because he has omitted to pleaded specifically that mentioned. As observed above, it has not been mention certain facts in his pleadings which ought to have been mentioned. As obsrrved above, it has not been pleaded specifically that late Shri Gehru was suffering from the abovesaid legal disability since the time of his birth, muchless at the time of the execution of power of attorney (D-8) Even if it be so considered, then also document D-8 has not been challenged and regarding the sale in question the evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the aforesaid fact is lacking At the most allegation that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff beils down to the effect that late Shri Gehru was suffering from great mental weakness which does not by itself tent-amount to lunacy or idiocy. In that view of the matter, the suit pertaining to the first transaction is patently barred by limitation. 26. Now adverting to second transaction. I have already observed that Smt. Devkoo, the next friend, is not proved to be the wife of Gehru. On the other hand, Gehru as per her (PW-1) own testimony was capable of understanding through the language of signs. In that view of the matter Gehru himself could have challenged the alienation or his daughter Smt. Kimtu, PW-2, could have brought the suit on or before 31st of July, 1984. On the other hand, Gehru as per her (PW-1) own testimony was capable of understanding through the language of signs. In that view of the matter Gehru himself could have challenged the alienation or his daughter Smt. Kimtu, PW-2, could have brought the suit on or before 31st of July, 1984. None of them have come forwards to bring a suit within 12 years from the date of the second sale in favour of the defendants which was effected through Smt. Sobhi, general attorney of Gehru despite the fact that she attained majority in the year 1974-75 as per her own statement recorded on 9-4-1986. Thus in that view of, the matter, the instant suit for possession has not properly/validly been instituted by afcompetent person to do so within limitation. 27. In otherwise case too Smt. Devkoo has acted as next friend of the plaintiff. It has come into evidence of DW-1 Smt. Rama Dogra that she stays with one Shri Bhagat Ram who is in illegal possession of Gehrus property and also financing litigation. This statement made on oath, is unrebutted. Said Smt Devkoo has appeared as DW-1, but nowhere she has controverted the abovesaid fact nor any suggestion to the contrary has been put to DW-1 in cross-examination. Thus in that view of the matter too, she cannot be said to be a dis-interested person. Under Order XXXII Rule 4, any person who is of sound mind and has attained majority may act as next friend of a minor or as his guardian for the suit of a minor, insane or idiot or a person of unsound mind or a person who has not been so adjudged but if found on inquiry to be incapable by reasons of mental infirmity of protecting their interest on being sued or to sue, provided that interest of such person acting as next friend is not adverse to that of the minor or other person referred to above. In view of the evidence discussed above, Smt Devkoo, cannot be stated to be a disinterested person so far as Gehru was concerned As such she could not have acted as his next friend. In that view of the matter too, the instant suit has not properly or validly been filed. Indisputably Shri Gehru expired during the pendency of the suit in the year 1983 as per the evidence led by both the parties. In that view of the matter too, the instant suit has not properly or validly been filed. Indisputably Shri Gehru expired during the pendency of the suit in the year 1983 as per the evidence led by both the parties. Smt. Kimtu (his daughter) was brought on record on 5-7-1984 by the order of this Court and she did not take any legal step to file a suit for possession in her own independent right except having been substituted as legal representative. She could not have persued the suit which was not validly instituted as discussed above. Thus, from whatsoever angle the facts be viewed, the suit is patently time barred with respect to both the transactions of sale referred to above. These issues are decided accordingly. Issue Nos. 7 to 9 : 28. All these issues are inter-mixed and with a view to avoid the repetition of discussion of evidence, .they can be conveniently disposed of together. 29. The main thrust of the plaintiff case is that Shri Gehru (since deceased) was a deaf and dumb person and was of a low intelligence. In other words, he was a lunatic. Lunatic as per section 3 (5) of the Lunancy Act means: "3 (5). 1. Lunatic : Unsoundness of mind taken by itself was held not sufficient to bring a person within the meaning of the term "lunatic" as defined by the Lunancy Act of 1858, unless it incapaciated him from managing his affairs, nor was a person who was incapable of managing the affairs of a lunatic, unless that incapacity was produced by unsoundness of mind......" Section 11 of the Contract Act referred to above deals with the competency of a person to enter into a contract. 30. 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 relies on the soundness 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. There being a presumption in favour of sanity, the person who relies on the soundness 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, 1 have to find out, what is the meaning of sound mind. 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." 31. Now, there is no gain-saying the fact that initially the property under challenge belonged to said Snri Gehru. The factum of his being deaf and dumb person has also not been disputed by the defendants. In order to prove that he was a person of low intelligence, unable to understand his interest, only Smt. Devkoo (PW-1) and Smt. Kimtu (.PW-2) have appeared as a witness on behalf of plaintiff. In her statement PW-1 has stated on oath that Gehru was deaf and dumb and he could understand only the language of signs and that he was illiterate. PW-2 has also made a similar statement by adding that her father was "totally" deaf and dumb. 32. In rebuttal, Smt. Rama Dogra, widow of late Shri Charan Dass Dopra (Vendee), Shri Pritam the scribe of the general power of attorney Ex D-8. Shri Saran Pat, a mariginal witness of Ex. D-8 and Hardip Paul Singh have appeared as DWs 1, 6, 7 and 11 respectively. All of them state on oath with one voice that said Gehru was deaf and dumb besides being illiterate, but he could understand the language of signs. DW-1 Smt. Rama Dogra has stated so Ex D-8, was executed as far bact as on 28-8-1962. D-8 and Hardip Paul Singh have appeared as DWs 1, 6, 7 and 11 respectively. All of them state on oath with one voice that said Gehru was deaf and dumb besides being illiterate, but he could understand the language of signs. DW-1 Smt. Rama Dogra has stated so Ex D-8, was executed as far bact as on 28-8-1962. According to DW-6 this document was presented before the Tehsildar, Kullu, who read over the same to the executant and the witnesses and enquired from Gehru executant about his consent to the execution thereof According to him, Gehru indicated his consent by signs that he had consented. He then states that he signed the document again and Gehru aforesaid thumb marked it before the Tehsildar concerned. According to this document Smt. Sobhi was appointed as General Attorney to do everything with respect to the land. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not earlier to that occasion communicated with Gehru or Sobhi but he had seen said Gehru twice or thrice. According to him on the askance of Tehsildar as to the relationship of Smt Sobhi with him and he had replied that she was his -laaree" and further enquiry as to what he had written in the document, he (Gehru) indicated by signs that the execution of the document in favour of his wife. According to him, be did not speak any other words except "laaree". 33. PW-7 is the other marginal witness to Ex D-8. He has also stated that Gehru made the petitioner writer by making the signs to understand that power of attorney was to be written in favour of Smt. Sobhi, the contents of which were after being executed, read over and explained to him and he appended his thumb impression in taken of its correctness. According to him, Gehru could speak very little “As-Aa-Aa" and he had full power of understanding. In cross-examination this witness stated that he was 64 years of age and Gehru was elder to him. He then affirms that he knew Gehru since his childhood when he was 10 or 12 years of age and that he saw Smt Sobhi, in his house since he attained the age of 19 years. He admitted that he never visited Shri Gehrus house According to him Sobhi was told by the petition writer as to what was to be written in document Ex. He admitted that he never visited Shri Gehrus house According to him Sobhi was told by the petition writer as to what was to be written in document Ex. D-8 and Gehru was conveying it by signs. According to him the only words that Gehru uttered before the petition writer and Tehsildar was "As-Aa and Aa" "Ann, Ann, Ann" and "Laaree" and he did not speak any other words from his mouth in his pretence. He further admits that the entire work pertaining to the writing of Ex. D-8 and its registration was got done by Smt. Sobhi and Gehru piayed no part in it since he was deaf and dumb. 34. PW-11 states that he was posted as a Naib Tehsildar-cum-Sub-Registrar at Kullu when Ex. D-8 was presented before him for registration and this document was accompanied by his Medical Certificate Ex. D-9. Further he states that an endorsement Ex. D-8/A was written by a clerk but was signed by him after its contents were read over and explained to Gehru. He admits that Gehru was partially deaf and dumb but he could hear if spoken to loudly and he answered the questions by signs. In cross-examination he admitted that he answered the questions after refreshing his memory. He further stated that he was unable to state whether Shri Gehru understood only the local dialect or Hindi or English or did not understand it. He denied the factum of having signed the endorsement on power of attorney made at the time of registration thereof in routine. He categorically states that he made enquiries and satisfied himself and then signed. 35. It is to be noted that no suggestion as to the collusion between the executant or Smt. Sobhi or either marginal witnesses or Sub-Tehsildar-cum-sub-Registrar has been made to either of the above witnesses. Power of Attorney (Ex. D-8) has not been challenged The said document is a registered one. All legal obligations as envisaged under sections S8 to 60 of the Registration Act, have been complied with. Medical Certificate D-9 shows that said Gehru was of sound mind though he was deaf and dumb. Apart from the above Shri Sobha Ram of the Registration office, Kullu and Hardip Singh Pal, the then Naib Tehsildar, are independent witnesses. They have no interest in either party. 36. Medical Certificate D-9 shows that said Gehru was of sound mind though he was deaf and dumb. Apart from the above Shri Sobha Ram of the Registration office, Kullu and Hardip Singh Pal, the then Naib Tehsildar, are independent witnesses. They have no interest in either party. 36. Under section 85 of the Evidence Act 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 persons authenticating has assured himself of the identity of the person who has signed the instrument as well as the fact of execution. It is for this reason that a power of attorney bearing the authentication of a Notary Public or an authority mentioned in the aforesaid sections is taken as sufficient evidence of the execution of the instrument by the person who appears to be executant on the face of it. Such a power of attorney is valid both under this section as also section 33 of the Registration Act. lam fortified in taking this view by the observations made in case Kanhaiya Lal v. National Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1923 PC 114. 37. The evidence when critically examined indicate that Gehru was though deaf and dumb person but not of law intelligence. This view is further cemented by the fact that he had cantracted marriage thrice, one after the other. E-en according to the admission of Smt. Devkoo Gehru had taken part in execution of a divorce deed where after she had married Ram Ditta. Now he is a lunatic, then such divorce deed could not have been executed earlier to it None of the near relations like Smt. Sevati mother of Smt. Kimtu, or even Smt Devkoo had taken any legal steps to get power of attorney (D-8) set aside. Apart from it even the plaintiffs witnesses admitted that he (Gehru) could understand the language of signs. The cumulative effect of over-all facts and circumstances discussed above leads to no other conclusion that Gehru was of sound mind and capable of understanding his interest. Further factual of execution of a legal and valid general power or attorney in favour of Sobhi, his wife, is proved by cogent and convincing evidence. I hold so accordingly. 38. Admittedly, the sale deeds Ex. Further factual of execution of a legal and valid general power or attorney in favour of Sobhi, his wife, is proved by cogent and convincing evidence. I hold so accordingly. 38. Admittedly, the sale deeds Ex. D-l and D-2 were executed by Smt. Sobhi and general attorney of late Shri Gehru. Smt Sobhi died during the pendency of the suit in the year 1973-74. This fact is not controverted, by either party to the instant suit. The mere fact as is apparent from the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the power of attorney indicate that several civil and criminal cases are filed against the executant, Shri Gehru in the Court and there was none at the time of its execution or that Gehru as also his wife was illiterate and that Smt Kitntu his daughter remained with the sister of predecessor of the defendants for a period of 5-6 years when she was aged 17/18 years and sale-deed was got executed from her (Smt Kimtu) PW 2 by late Shri Charan Dass in his favour which stood ultimately set aside in the aforesaid earlier suit and further that said Gehru was deaf and dumb, are of no avail to the plaintiff to hold that Gehru was suffering from any legal disability or he was an idiot or a iunatic. Thus Issues No. 7 to 9 are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 10: 39. Power of attorney (D-8) has been held to be a legal and valid document, as such, sale transaction transacted by Smt. Sobhi in favour of defendants was legal and valid. Therefore,, the defendants had become absolute owners of the suit property through a valid transaction. Thus, the question of their having become owners by way of adverse possession arises. This issue, in fact, has become in fructuous, as such is decided accordingly. Issue No. 12 : 40. From the discussion made above, it is clear that the instant suit has not been properly and validly filed. Also plaintiff and Shri Gehru has expired in the year, 1983, during the pendency of this suit. Apart from it, defendant throughout remained in possession of the suit property. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and the circumstances, I do not find it proper that defendants should be awarded specific cost as claimed by them. Issue is decided accordingly. Also plaintiff and Shri Gehru has expired in the year, 1983, during the pendency of this suit. Apart from it, defendant throughout remained in possession of the suit property. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and the circumstances, I do not find it proper that defendants should be awarded specific cost as claimed by them. Issue is decided accordingly. 41. In view of the above, plaintiff fails and as such, the suit is dismissed with proportionate costs. Suit dismissed.