JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J—This judgment shall dispose of three appeals, i.e. R.F.A No 108 of 1986 filed by Smt Rama Dogra and others who are heirs and successors of late Charan Dass Dogra, who was defendant No.1 in the suit ; R.F.A. No. 118 of 1986 filed by Dev Raj and others who were defendants No. 2 to 4 in the suit ; and R.F.A. No. 54 of 1987 (Devta Ganpati v Smt. Rama Dogra and others), as all these three appeals have arisen out of the same judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 31- of 1981 decided by the learned single Judge of this Court vide judgment and decree dated October 18, 1985. The parties, hereinafter in the judgment, shall be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and defendants. 2. The suit out of which the present appeals have arisen, was filed by Gehru as deaf and dumb through his wife and next friend Smt. Devku. Gehru has died and Smt Kimtu daughter of Gehru has been substituted in his place vide order dated July 5, 1984 passed by the learned single Judge. Defendant No.1 was Charan Dass who too has died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives, i.e. wife, daughters and son, have been brought on record in his place as defendants No.1-A to 1-F vide order-passed, by the learned single-Judge of thin Court on June 29, 1982. In the suit, Gehru claimed a decree for possession of the suit land as well as for Rs 5K000 as mesne profits on account of use and occupation of the land and these mesne profits were calculated for three years-1976 to 1979 In the alternative, a decree for Rs 99,949 was claimed. 3. The plaintiff claimed himself to be an indigent person as defined under Order 33, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code and pleaded that he was deaf and dumb and a person of ill intellect. He could, however, understand by signs and gestures. He was unable to file the present suit on account of the disability and the same was being filed through his wife and next friend Suit. Devku who had no adverse interest to him and was a fit person to act as next friend. 4. He could, however, understand by signs and gestures. He was unable to file the present suit on account of the disability and the same was being filed through his wife and next friend Suit. Devku who had no adverse interest to him and was a fit person to act as next friend. 4. Defendant No 4 was stated to be minor under the guardianship of his parents, i.e. defendants No. 2 and 3, and, thus, they were pleaded to be fit persons to act as guardian ad litem for him. 5. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit land and on May 22, 1975, one Kimtu representing herself to be daughter of the plaintiff, moved an application under section 8 of the Hindu Minority a and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking permission to sell or lease the property. This application was moved through Charan Dass Dogra, Advocate of Kullu who had been impleaded as defendant No.1 The application, as per averments contained in the application, was allowed by the learned District Judge on May 31, 1975 and acting on the authority of the said permission, Smt Kimtu sold the suit property in favour of defendant No 1 in a feverish haste on June 6, 1975 for Rs. 48,000. 6. A power of attorney was also executed by Smt Kimtu in favour of one Lottan Dass authorising him to represent her before the Revenue Officer for the purpose of sanction of mutation which was sanctioned It was pleaded that all the proceedings commencing from the filing of the application till the sanction of mutation, are void and vitiated by fraud and undue influence. 7. A Revision Petition was moved by Smt Devku wife of the plaintiff through whom the present suit has been filed, laying challenge to the order dated May 31, 1975 passed by the learned District Judge and this Court vide order dated October 31, 1979, quashed the order as without jurisdiction. It is, thus, said in the plaint that all subsequent proceedings including sale in favour of defendant No 1, are void and not binding on the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is said to be in unauthorised and illegal possession of the suit land and is liable to imburse the plaintiff for the benefits he derived out of the land and the orchard. Defendant No.1 is said to be in unauthorised and illegal possession of the suit land and is liable to imburse the plaintiff for the benefits he derived out of the land and the orchard. It is said that one Smt. Sobi was the late wife of the plaintiff and in collusion with her defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed dated July 31, 1971 in his favour for land measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas for Rs 0,000 out of 31 bighas 5 biswas, but on partition, he fraudulently got allotted 12 bighas 10 biswas for himself. The sale was also challenged as unauthorised and so was the attack on partition 8. Defendant No.1 knew that sale by Kimtu in his favour was void as she had no right, title or authority to sell the land and there was a restraint order passed by this Court directing him not to alienate the land in any manner, but still immediately after the decision in Civil Revision by this Court on October 31, 1979, defendant No.1 sold the land on November 3, 1979 by three separate sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. These sales were for Rs 33,316.33 each These three defendants are said to have obtained only one-third share each out of the suit land and these three sale deeds were execetied to avoid income tax implications. It is said that defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 had prior notice of the defective title of defendant No.1 and they fully well knew the right of the plaintiff in the suit land and the fact is recited in the sale deeds which were executed in their favour. 9. The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was an indigent person or Devku was entitled to ace a his next friend She was denied to be the legally wedded wife of Gehru This was admitted that Kimtu is the daughter of the plaintiff. The order passed by this Court was admitted and a plea was raised that the order has been made on the basis of concession made by the counsel appearing for the defendants who had no authority to make such concession and the same was not binding on Charan Dass Dogra who was defendant No.1. The defendants claim themselves to be bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. The defendants claim themselves to be bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. The allegations made in the plaint were, thus, dented and it was pleaded that Kimtu was the general attorney of her father Gehru and she had also created a lease in respect of the suit land in favour of Charan Dass Dogra and put him in possession on May 6, 1975, the sale was made by her later. It was pleaded that she is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct. Further plea was raised that the lease would revive in case the sale deed is set aside 10. Defendants No. 2 to 4 claim themselves to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and sought protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 11. After examining the evidence placed on record by the parties, the learned single Judge held that though Devku was not proved to be the legal representative of Gehru and could not maintain the suit in that capacity as such the suit was decided against her and her name was ordered f to be struck off from the array of legal representatives. A decree for possession has been passed in favour of Kimtu in respect of the suit land as mentioned at -A of the plaint. The suit for recovery of mesne profits has been ordered to be dismissed. 12. R FA. No. 118/86 has been filed by defendants No. 2, 3-and 4 where as the other appeal, i.e. R.F.A.. No 54/87 was filed by Devku widow of Gehru She died during the pendency of the appeal and Devta Ganpati was brought on record as legal representative vide order dated May 29, 1995 passed by this Court. Devta Ganpati moved an application, i.e. C.M.P. No. 44/95 under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging that Devku had died issueless and had made a will of her enure property in favour of Devta Ganpati who is the sole legal representative of Smt. Devku and be brought on record s such in substitution to the appellant. This application was allowed. 13. The question of examining the appeal of Devta Ganpati, legal representative of Devku, would arise only if Devku is held entitled to any relief in the present appeal. This application was allowed. 13. The question of examining the appeal of Devta Ganpati, legal representative of Devku, would arise only if Devku is held entitled to any relief in the present appeal. If the Court ultimately finds that the appeal filed by Devku has no merit, then the case set up by Devta Ganpati has to be rejected. 14. The third appeal has been filed by the heirs and successors of Charan Dass Dogra who was defendant No, 1 and died during the pendency of the suit. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants contends that the present suit could not be continued by Smt. Kimtu as daughter of the plaintiff as she was debarred by her act and conduct. She sold this property to defendant No. 1 and earlier to this a lease deed had been executed by her in his favour. She never laid a challenge to the order passed by the learned District Judge granting her permission to sell the property of the plaintiff. The arguments proceeds on the basis that the present suit has been filed by Gehru himself through his wife and next friend Smt. Devku who has been held not to be his wife and the legal representative who was simply brought on record for regularising the proceedings, had not filed any suit in her capacity laying challenge to the sale and, thus, the suit had to be dismissed. 16. It is next contended that the order passed by this Court was on the basis of a concession given by the learned Counsel who was appearing for Charan Dass Dogro, Advocate, and this concession is not binding on the defendants as the same was without any right and authority. Jt is further argued that the three sales made in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 are perfectly valid as the injunction had been granted during the pendency of the Civil Revision and in the final order no such mandate had been given by this Court. Jt is further argued that the three sales made in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 are perfectly valid as the injunction had been granted during the pendency of the Civil Revision and in the final order no such mandate had been given by this Court. Defendants No. 2 to 4 claim themselves to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and the sales made in their favour are said to be protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act The learned Counsel further proceeds to submit that the plaintiff was not a person of unsound mind neither he was suffering from any mental infirmity and as per evidence placed on record, he was capable enought to understand the signs and gestures and, therefore, the present suit was incompetent and. could not be maintained. The learned Counsel has taken us through the pleadings and record in order to supplement the submissions. 17. The learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Kimtu, daughter of the plaintiff, who was brought on record in his place as his legal representative, submits that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or any other infirmity. The same is said to be perfectly justified on the given facts and the defendants cannot escape their liability as the sales made in their favour are by fraud, collusion, mis-representation and obtained with dishonest means. The learned Counsel has further adopted the same line of reasoning as is projected in the imgugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinising the judgment and the record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in these appeals. 19. It is really unfortunate to observe as to how late Shri Charan Dass Dogra acted and behaved in complete derogation to the professional ethics and standards. The person is no more but the act and conduct is highly deplorable. Application under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act which was drafted by Charan Dass Dogra, Advocate, is dated May 15, 1975. Permission was sought to sell certain properties by Smt. Kimtu of her father Shri Gehru who was stated in the application to be deaf and dumb. This application was actually presented before the learned Court on May 22f 1975 for the first time. Permission was sought to sell certain properties by Smt. Kimtu of her father Shri Gehru who was stated in the application to be deaf and dumb. This application was actually presented before the learned Court on May 22f 1975 for the first time. Notices by proclamation were directed to be issued for May 28, 1975 20. On May 28, 1975, the case was adjourned to May 31, 1975 for recording the evidence of the applicant. On that day, order dated May 5, 1975 was passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi allowing the application. The sale in question was made by Smt. Kimtu in favour of Charan Dass Dogra, Advocate, within six days thereafter, i.e. on June 6, 1975 and mutation was sanctioned in his favour on June 17, 1975. We have purposely given the above said dates which by itself speaks of the feverish haste in which the application was dealt with by the learned Court. This also projects the act and conduct of an Advocate in getting the sale deed j executed in his favour from a person for whom he was counsel and on her I behalf the application seeking permission to sell properties, was filed. 21. This order passed by the learned District Judge dated May 31, 1975 was challenged by Devku through whom the present suit was filed as next friend of Gehru,, This Court vide order dated October 31 1979, Ext. P-l on record, states that: “Seri K.D. Sood learned Counsel for the respondents agrees that this order cannot be supported in law as neither Smt. Kimtu was a only guardian of Gehru nor Shri Gehru was a minor within the meaning of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The order as such is without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed." It may be noted here that this order has attained finality as no challenge was made to this order by any one. It has, therefore, to be seen what is the effect of the order passed by this Court, reference to which has been made immediately above. In our opinion, the net result that flows is that the order passed by the learned District Judge dated May 31, 1975 granting permission to Kimtu to alienate the properties belonging to her/father Gehru, was quashed. Once the order is non-existing, the sale which was made on the strength of the order, would be wholly illegal and invalid. In our opinion, the net result that flows is that the order passed by the learned District Judge dated May 31, 1975 granting permission to Kimtu to alienate the properties belonging to her/father Gehru, was quashed. Once the order is non-existing, the sale which was made on the strength of the order, would be wholly illegal and invalid. It was not open to Charan Dass Dogra, Advocate, to contend the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel as incorporated in section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Gehru, the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and Kimtu has been impleaded as his heir and legal representative, admittedly, being his daughter. Defendants No. 1-A to 1-F, who are the legal representatives of Charan Dass Dogra and are his successors-in-interest, are bound by the sale made by Kimtu on June 6, 1975. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act shall have no application as it deals with the transfer made by an unauthorised person who at a subsequent stage acquires an interest in the property transferred. If such a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he had the authority to transfer some immovable properties and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. The section further provides that nothing contained therein shall impair the rights of a transferee in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option. 22. It is really strange as to how this argument is available to the appellants Nothing has been brought on record to show that any representation was made by Kimtu to Charan Dass Dogra fraudulently gr erroneously about any title having vested in ner and Charan Dass Dogra acted on such representation and thereby was mis-led to enter into the transaction of sale More over, no such plea has been raised by Charan Dass Dogra in the written statement. In the absence of the plea, the argument is not available to him 23. The matter can be examined from another angle also. The provisions contained in section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act can be of some use or help in cases where the equity is involved. In the absence of the plea, the argument is not available to him 23. The matter can be examined from another angle also. The provisions contained in section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act can be of some use or help in cases where the equity is involved. Now, whether the defendants are entitled to or deserve any relief in equity on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, is to be examined keeping in view the relationship between a litigant and his counsel it was, thus, ; incumbent upon Charan Dass Dogra and the defendants to establish that the transaction entered into by him with Kimtu, who was his client, was honest and was not tainted by any other colour. Kimtu, thus, was incompetent to effect the sale in question on behalf of her father Gehru and, therefore, the argument cannot be accepted that she estopped from filing the suit in question. 24. Another important fact that cannot be lost sight of is that during pendency of the Civil Revision before this Court, ad-interim order was passed whereby Charan Dass Dogra was restrained from creating any I alienation in respect of the suit property sold to him by Kimtu. The said f\ order ultimately merged in the final order made by this Court, notice of which has already been taken above in the earlier part of this judgment. An argument is based on the fact that as there was no such direction in the final order, Charan Dass Dogra was quite competent to sell the part of the land in favour of defendants No. 2, Band after the decision made by this Court. The sales were made within a few days from the date of the order which by itself shows that the transaction was shady and being a small town, it could be inferred that the property is in litigation, was known to several persons around the area Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4, by no stretch of imagination, can be held bona fide purchasers for value nor they are entitled to seek protection under the provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Before section 41 can be said to be of any use to the defendants, they had to establish that the transferor was the ostensible owner and further the transfer was made with express or implied consent of the real owner. Before section 41 can be said to be of any use to the defendants, they had to establish that the transferor was the ostensible owner and further the transfer was made with express or implied consent of the real owner. There is not a whisper in their record to the effect that the real owner, i.e. Gehru had at any point of time expressly or impliedly consented to the transfer in favour of the subsequent vendees The learned Single Judge has also take notice of the statements made by Inder Singh (PW1-2) and Roop Chand (PW-3) On the basis of these statements it was found that defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 cannot succeed on this issue. It has been stated by these witnesses that defendant No. 2 had come into their contract prior to tehuexecution of sale in their favour by Charan Dass Dogra and the was duly informed about the defect in the title of Charan Dass Dogra Nothing was pat to these witnesses in cross-examination and, thus, their testimony has been accepted by the learned Single Judge. It, therefore, cannot be held that i defendants No 2, 3 and 4 were not aware about the risk: they were entering into. The question of having purchased a part of the land in good faith does not arise. 25. Whether Devku is the wife of Gehru, has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge under Issue No. 1 which was framed on August 28, 1984 According to her own version as given in her statement, a customary divorce was taken from Gehru whereafter she married one Ram Ditta A case is made out that she left Ram Ditta and once again entered into marriage with Gehru under the custom. The divorce and the entering into the second marriage are said to have been reduced into writing on stamp papers. Surprisingly, no such document has been placed on record by the parties. The divorce and the entering into the second marriage are said to have been reduced into writing on stamp papers. Surprisingly, no such document has been placed on record by the parties. There is no doubt about the fact that Devku was the wife of Gehru and had been living with him under one roof but she cannot be held to be the legally wedded wife of Gehru for the reason that Gehru had a wife living with him when the re-marriage is stated to have taken place The marriage, even if any, has to be regarded as void ab initio and we are in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge on this issue. She has rightly been held not to be the legal representative of Gehru and as such incompetent to maintain the present suit. 26. It has also been argued that the suit was not filed by Kimtu in her own capacity. She only dropped on the same as legal representative of the plaintiff. 27. It has to be noticed that the suit was filed by Gehru himself through his next friend and alleged wife Devku. The suit was not filed by Devku in her own interest, In case the suit is decreed and the plaintiff was alive, the entire benefit would have gone to him. It is during the pendency of the said suit that the original plaintiff died and the suit has been continued by his alleged wife and daughter and having been brought on record as his heir and legal representative. In case the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of relief, Devku was not disqualified to act as his next friend and there was no bar as such, it cannot, therefore, be said that the suit is incompetent and Kimtu is not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit which was originally filed by her father On the other hand, it can safely be held that the defendants, in view of their act and conduct particularly Charan Dass Dogra who was appearing as counsel for Kimtu, cannot be permitted to urge that Kimtu is estopped from her act and conduct and suit carried forward by her is incompetent 28. Several instances have been brought to our notice that Charan Dass Dogra was indulging in such kind of deals and duped many of his clients in the same fashion. Several instances have been brought to our notice that Charan Dass Dogra was indulging in such kind of deals and duped many of his clients in the same fashion. One such matter is involved in R.F.A. No 355 of 1992 in respect of another deal on the strength of which Charan Dass Dogra purchased the property of Gehru earlier to the one in question and that appeal is being separately decided. Another instance has been brought to our notice which is reported in ILR 1983 (HP) 277 Smt. Thakri Devi v. Smt Rama Dogra and others), where this very Charan Dass Dogra had dupted a lady Thakri Devi and fraudulently obtained a gift of land worth more than rupees two lac and it was held that the gift was obtained under undue influence and the transaction was unconscionable. It was also held that the onus to prove that the gift was not executed under undue influence, was on the defendant (widow of the lawyer). 29. In view of what has been said above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or any other error of misreading or mis-construction of evidence by the learned Single Judge. The judgment appears to be perfectly just and proper. The learned Counsel for the defendants appellants have not been able to persuade as to take a different view in the matter than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge with whom we are in full agreement. 30. No other point was urged. 31. The appeals are consequently ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge is maintained. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.