Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, disentitles a de facto guardian from alienating not only the separate property of a minor but also his undivided share in a joint family property.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. These appeals arising from a common judgment in two suits, raise an important question pertaining to the scope and ambit of Section 11 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. A. S. No. 49/1975 arises from O. S. No, 66/1963, while A. S. No. 50/1975 arises from O. S. No. 69/1968, both suits on the file of the First Additional district Judge, Rajahmundry.

( 2 ) THE two plaintiffs are brothers and their suit claim is identical, namely, for partition and separate possession of their 1/3 share in suit properties. The 1st defendant in both the suits is the eldest brother of the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the sons of one Nanduri Kukkuteswararao.

( 3 ) IT would be sufficient, If 1 state the facts in O. S. No. 66/68. According to the plaint averments, during the minority of the plaintiffs their father effected a partition and separated himself from his three sons. The partition is evidenced by a registered partition deed dated 2-7-1949 (Ex. A-1 ). According to the said deed of partition, the lands mentioned in a Schedule therein were allotted to the father, while the properties mentioned in b schedule were allotted to the three sons jointly. a schedule consisted of about Ac. 10. 00, while b schedule consisted of about Ac. 30. 00. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in the said Ac. 30. 00. After attaining the majority he wanted to have his 1/3 share separated, but then he found defendants 3 to 7 in unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. According to him, the alienations, if any, made of the suit property are void and not binding upon him and for that reason the possession of defendants 3 to 7 thereon is unlawful and unauthorised. He, therefore, asked for mesne profits also besides partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share. The suit is confined to the said Ac. 30. 00, mentioned in b schedule to the partition deed, dated. 2-7-1949.

( 4 ) I will refer to the written statement filed by defendants 4 and 5 only, since defendants 4 and 5 are the only contesting defendants-appellants. According to them, the alleged partition effected by the father in 1949 in not true, but a sham and nominal transaction ; that, even on the date of the suit the father and all the three sons were living together and that, this suit is filed at the instance of the father who is the real litigant behind both the suits. According to them further the sales in their favour are valid and binding upon the plaintiffs in as much as they were effected for the purpose of discharging antecedent debts. According to them, two mortgages (Exs. B-5 and B-6) were executed by the minors, earlier, through their paternal grand-mother and guardian and that, when the said mortgagees insisted upon payment, the sales in favour of the defendants, i. e. Exs. B-1 and B-2, were effected in 1957, In other words, the alienations in their favour were effected for discharging the prior mortgage debts besides other family necessities. It was also stated that the mortgagees under Exs. B-5 and B-6 filed two suits, O. S. 5/1963, and OS. 6/1963 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry, which were decreed in full under exs. B-8 and B-9, which are the judgments of the trial Court and High court on appeal, respectively. For that reason, the defendants stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to ignore the said sale deeds in their favour and the suits are liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the above pleadings, the Court below framed appropriate issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence found (i) that the partition deed, Ex. A-1, dated 2-7-1949 is true, valid and was acted upon by the parties; (ii) that, the suits are in time- and (iii) that, the alienations covered by Exs. B-1 and B-2 are void. On the above findings the suits were decreed in so far as the items concerned in these appeals are concerned. Hence these two appeals.

( 6 ) SRI C. Poornaiah, the learned Counsel for the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document