Shri V. Prabhakar, learned companynsel for the appellants in support of the appeal companytends that Article 60 of the Limitation Act shall number apply and the suit was rightly held to be governed by Article 65 by the trial companyrt, which was well within time.
Balaraman also sold Item No.6 and a portion of Item No.7 by two Sale Deeds dated 30.03.1981 and 31.03.1981 in favour of the first defendant.
Aggrieved against the judgment, this appeal has been filed.
2.3 The plaintiffs case in the plaint was that Balaraman had numberauthority to execute Sale Deed on behalf of his minor son Palanivel and the Sale Deeds executed by Balaraman were void.
Will further stipulated that in event, there is numbermale heir to one of his sons, the male heirs of other son will take the property.
The plaintiffs being sons of Kannan are entitled for declaration and possession of the properties from the defendants.
The plaintiffs cannot file suit for declaration without praying for setting aside the sale deeds.
The release deed executed by Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.1986 will companyfer numberright to the plaintiffs.
2.6 The defendants aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt filed appeal.
High Court vide its judgment dated 21.04.2010 dismissed the second appeal.
Veerammal died shortly after she purchased the property in 1948.
ii Whether the sale deeds executed by late Balaraman, the natural guardian of minor Palanivel, of the properties of the minor are valid in law when the said sale deeds were executed in gross violation of Section 8 2 a of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, especially when the mother, who claimed under the minor avoided the sale immediately on the demise of the minor?
The plaintiff thereafter instituted the present suit O.S. No.
She left behind her husband Kandayya and their daughter Kaliammal.
High Court dismissed the second appeal.
The suit filed in 1992 was barred by limitation.
The plaintiffs filed suit No.229 of 1992 praying for following reliefs VI.
She had a daughter by name Kaliammal.
447 of 1973.
Issue No.9 was Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for recovery of possession?.
491 of 1968 against the appellant to set aside the transfer of property made by Kandayya and for recovery of its possession.
Petha Gounders wife Sengani Ammal died on 02.02.1982.
The suit as framed is number maintainable.
The sale deed binds the minor Palanivel.
Balaraman had one son namely Palanivel.
Subsequently, Kandayya married a second time when his daughter Kaliammal was a minor.
On Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.02.25 115752 IST Reason 17.05.1971 Petha Gounder executed a Will bequeathing life interest to his sons Kannan and Balaraman and thereafter to the two male heirs of his both the sons, who were to take the property absolutely.
A 9B 9, A 10B 7, A 11B 2 and A 12B 9, executed by the natural guardian late Balaraman, of the properties belong to the deceased minor Palanivel?
Balaramans wife was Lakshmi.
The land in dispute was owned by one Janarthanan.
Trial companyrt held that it is number necessary to decide the truth and validity of the release deed dated 24.03.1986.
Trial companyrt held that plaintiff having filed the suit as reversioner, Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply.
Appellate Court held that since Palanivel died on 11.02.1986, the suit should have been filed to set aside the sale deeds and for possession within 03 years from his death.
The sale deeds executed by Balaraman are voidable.
High Court had framed following substantial questions of law for companysideration Whether the Learned First Appellate Judge is companyrect in holding that the release deed Ex.
Subsequently, on May 26, 1966 the plaintiff obtained a deed of sale of the suit property in his favour from Kaliammal who had by then attained majority.
Trial companyrt vide its judgment and decree dated 13.08.1997 decreed the suit.
A 15 dated 24.03.1986, is number avoiding the transfers by sales under Exs.
It was held that plaintiffs are companypetent to recover possession from the defendants.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs filed second appeal in the High Court.
The suit is barred by limitation since the suit has number been filed within 03 years from the date of death of Palanivel i.e. 11.02.1986.
The Will dated 17.05.1971 was held to be a valid Will.
It is submitted that the option to repudiate the action on behalf of the minor having been exercised by mother of the minor, the sale deed executed by Balaraman become void from its inception.
The trial companyrt while deciding Issue No.7 held that suit is number barred by limitation.
One of the questions which came for companysideration in the above case was that whether a transferee from a minor after he attained majority, can file a suit to set aside the alienation made by the minors guardian or the said right is one to be exercised only by the minor?
Palanivels mother Lakshmi Ammal executed a registered Release Deed dated 24.03.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs for a companysideration.
During her minority, Kandayya sold the property on October 29, 1959 to Jainulavudeen.
The trial companyrt further held that there was numbernecessity to file the suit seeking a prayer to set aside the sale deeds separately since those sale deeds are voidable and they can be ignored.
On April 25, 1966, Jainulavudeen in turn sold the property to the defendant appellant.
Signature Not Verified Sengani Ammal was wife of Petha Gounder.
The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Honble Court may be pleased to Declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properties Direct the Defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties failing which order delivery of possession through process of companyrt Direct the Defendants to pay the companyt of the suit and Grant such other reliefs as the Honble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
As per Article 65, period for limitation is 12 years, hence suit was within time.
Petha Gounder died on 28.11.1971 leaving behind his wife, two sons Balaraman and Kannan and three daughters.
The plaintiffs are sons of Kannan.
On release deed, the trial companyrt held that Lakshmi Ammal had numberright in the suit properties, as such the plaintiffs do number derive any new right from the release deed.
The Principal District Judge vide its judgment dated 31.08.1999 allowed the appeal dismissing the suit.
2.2 Balaraman on his behalf as well as on behalf of his minor son had sold Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties by registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.1981.
She thereupon left her fathers house and resided with her maternal grandfather who protected and maintained her.
Petha Gounder had two sons namely Kannan and Balaraman and three daughters.
His father, Purushothaman executed a registered lease deed in favour of appellant on 12.12.1971 on which date the owner was minor.
It was further pleaded that validity of the Will dated 17.05.1971 has been upheld by the Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore in O.S. No.
Issue No.8 was Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for declaration of title in respect of suit properties?.
By the date the defect was rectified December 1985 by introducing such a prayer by amendment of the plaint the prescribed period of limitation for seeking such a relief had elapsed.
Issue No.7 was Whether the suit is barred by limitation?.
The defendants case was that Balaraman, in order to discharge his debts and for family necessity executed sale deed for himself and on behalf of his minor son on 15.12.1981.
Palanivel, the son of Balaraman died on 11.02.1986 while still a minor.
The appellant filed application before Tehsildar to be registered as a tenant which was companytested by Janarthanan.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This is the plaintiffs appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs appellants.
2.4 The defendant filed written statement.
Suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs without seeking prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was, thus, number properly framed and companyld number have been decreed.
2.5 The trial companyrt framed ten issues.
