As per case facts, the plaintiff sued to invalidate a sale deed of land purchased by his father in the plaintiff's minor name, claiming the father illegally sold it without ... court permission. Both lower courts dismissed the suit, finding the father was the real owner, making the son a benamidar, and thus Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, requiring court permission, was not applicable. The suit was also found time-barred. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the rejection of additional documents and the application of the Benami Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provisions. The question arose whether the lower courts' findings on rejecting additional documents and applying the Benami and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Acts were perverse. Finally, the Court ruled that the rejection of additional documents was correct due to lack of diligence. It confirmed that the father was the real owner and the son a benamidar, meaning Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, was not attracted. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were not found perverse, illegal, or a misapplication of law, as the appeal mainly sought re-appreciation of facts.