JUDGMENT : - The appellant is the purchaser of land in Khammam town, measuring 700 sq. yards, and a suit against him for the cancellation of the sale deed as well as for possession of the property has been decreed by the Sadar Adalat, Warangal, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

2. The following set of facts in the case are not in dispute. One Surynnarayana was the adoptive father of the plaintiff-respondent, and had purchased the land measuring 800 sq. yards. He died on Farwardi 23, 1345 F. (February 25, 1936), leaving behind a widow, Nagarathnamma, and Arvapalli Ramakrishnaiah the adopted son. While the adopted son was still a minor, having been bom on Thir 13, 1332 F. (March 19, 1923). the widow as his guardian sold 700 sq. yards of the property purchased by her husband to the appellant on Farwardi 22, 1349 F. (February 24, 1940).

The father-in-law of the adopted son started proceedings in Court for the appointment of the guardian of the person and property of the minor on Farward 25, 1349F. (February 27. 1940) and such guardian was appointed. The widow appealed to the High Court against the appointment of the guardian and filed a revision petition also. But during the pendency of the appeal, she and the adopted son agreed to an arbitration and on the basis of the award, a decree was passed. After they had so adjusted their dispute, they filed an application in the High Court praying for the consignment of the appeal by the widow, termination of the guardianship proceeding, and for release of the properties in favour of the; adopted son.

On Bahman 12, 1351 F. (December 15, 1941), the High Court terminated the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. Prior to the order of the High Court, the plaintiff had readied the age of 18 years on Thir 13, 1350 F. (May 18, 1941); but the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed on Bahman 13, 1354 F. (December 15, 1944).

3. In the plaint it is stated that the widow and the purchaser had conspired together; that the property in dispute had been taken under a fictitious sale deed and the transaction is without any consideration and legal necessity. The suit was against six persons, the purchaser being the first defendant, his tenants defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and the widow defendant No. 6. In addition to the several pleas raised in the written statement, the purchaser claimed the sale to be genuine, supported by legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors estate.

He also stated that he had built a house on the land worth more than Rs. 60,000/- and the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in which it was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the question of limitation alone, deciding other issues in favour of the plaintiff. It held that the suit should have been filed on Thir 13, 1353F. (May 17, 1944) within three years of the appellants having completed the age of 18.

The appeal which was filed against the purchaser alone, the widow apparently having died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, was decreed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it was within three years of plaintiffs having completed the age of 21; that it was within three years of the order by the High Court terminating the guardianship proceeding; that it was within twelve years of the sale-deed; and that, therefore, the suit was within limitation.

4. The main contention before me is that the order appointing the guardian having been discharged by this Court, the plaintiff-respondent cannot file a suit within three years of his having completed the age of 21; that he was bound to file the claim within three years of having completed the age of 18 and the lower appellate Court has erred in holding the suit to be within limitation. Admittedly, the Article applicable to the suit is 44 of the Indian Limitation Act. which had a corresponding Article No. 35 in the Hyderabad Limitation Act.

If the plaintiff is allowed to file a suit within three years of his completing 21 years, the su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document