The gist of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that their mother as guardian executed the above sale deeds without any legal necessity and without sanction of the Court.
Digamber attained majority on 5th August 1975 and Vishwambhar became major on 20th July, 1978.
Thereafter they filed the suit RCS No.5/81 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Jalna, in the State of Maharashtra impleading the purchasers Laxminarayan and Vijay Kumar as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, their mother Laxmibai as defendant number3 and their sisters, Indumati, Usha, Mangla and Shobha as defendant number.
The defendants further averred that the alienations were made for legal necessity, for maintenance of the plaintiffs, for meeting the marriage expenses of defendant number.
The plaintiffs pleaded that the two sale deeds executed by defendant number3 on 14.11.1967 and 24.10.1974 in favour of defendant number.1 and 2 are number binding and operative on the legal rights of plaintiff number1, and prayed that the said sale deeds be set aside to the extent of his share and the suit for possession of the land under survey number515 Area 8 acres 26 guntas situated at Jalna bearing the local name Girdharchamala to the extent of 4/7th share be decreed with companyts against defendant number.
Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the second appeal number 350/96 in the High Court of Bombay challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate companyrt, which was dismissed summarily holding that numbersubstantial question of law was involved in the second appeal and that there was numbermerit in the second appeal.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1985 the defendants 1 and 2 preferred RCA No.80/1986 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalna.
3 to 7 by special leave.
At the time of death of their father Vishwambhar and Digmber were minors.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by Digamber.
She was also the manager of the joint family property.
4 to 7 respectively.
The trial companyrt by judgment dated 6.12.1985 decreed the suit of the plaintiff number1 against the defendants and dismissed the claim of plaintiff number2.
The Court declared that the sale deeds are number binding on plaintiff number 1 to the extent of his share in the suit land and that plaintiff number1 is entitled to recover 2 acres 11 guntas as his share from the suit land.
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.
The companytesting defendants 1 2 filed written statements pleading, inter alia, that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is number applicable in the case since the alienation has been made by the mother as natural guardian of the minors.
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal filed by the plaintiffs and defendant number.
The judgment of the trial companyrt dismissing the suit was number challenged by him.
Since the limitation started running from the dates when the plaintiffs attained majority the prescribed period had elapsed by the date of presentation of the plaint so far as Digamber is companycerned.
The appellate companyrt by the judgment dated 21.6.1995 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
Defendants 1 and 2 were ordered to deliver possession of the said property to the plaintiff number1.
1 and 2 and the plaintiffs be put in actual possession of their share by dispossessing the said defendants from the land, etc.
Again on 24.10.1974 she executed another sale deed in favour of Vijay Kumar son of Laxminarayan in respect of 4 acres 13 guntas, a part of the suit land for the sum of Rs.9000/ and delivered possession to the purchaser.
4 to 7, for satisfying antecedent debts etc.
On 14.11.1967 Laxmibai executed a sale deed in favour of Laxminarayan transferring 4 acres 13 guntas of the suit land for the sum of Rs.6,000/ and delivered possession to the purchaser.
Laxmibai was managing the properties left by Dattatraya Agnihotri as guardian of the minors.
Article 60 of the Limitation Act, prescribes a period of three years for setting aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward who has attained majority and the period is to be companyputed from the date when the ward attains majority.
The suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Dattatraya Agnihotri.
P. MOHAPATRA, J. One Dattatraya Agnihotri died in April 1961 leaving behind his widow Laxmibai, sons Vishwambhar and Digamber, and daughters, Indumati, Usha, Mangla and Shobha.
