The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, Art. 44, in determining the bar on suits to set aside alienations by guardians. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legal necessity and the scope of the court's powers in re-assessing evidence on record.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Dist. in R. A. No. 135 of 1966 on his file dismissing the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1966 passed by the Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 420 of 1962 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for setting aside the alienation done by his guardian during his minority.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that when he was a minor, the suit property was alienated under Ex. D-l to defendants 2 to 5 on 6-11-1952 stating that there was pressure and it was necessitated by legal necessity. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was a property got by him under a will Ex. P 1 dated 12-5-1945 from his maternal grand-father and that his mother had no right to sell that property. He submitted that there was absolutely no legal necessity to sell the property and defendants 2 to 7 defrauded his parents in getting the sale deed executed. So, he prayed for setting aside the sale and possession of the property. Defendants resisted the suit. According to them, the sale was for legal necessity, they also stated that the suit was barred by Art. 44 of the Limitation Act. After hearing the learned counsel and on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the sale was for legal necessity and that the suit was barred by time under Art. 44 of the Limitation, Act and thus, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge and as stated above, the learned Civil Judge by his judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the suit sale was effected by showing the mother of the plaintiff as guardian during his minority ; that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to sue within three years on attaining majority to set aside the sale and that it did not fall within the scope of Art. 44 of the Limitation Act, as it then existed. He further contended that the sale was void as it was not brought about by the natural guardian the father. He also contended that the sale was effected as if the property belonged to defendants 6 and 7 as also the minor and his brother in addition to Chinnamma, the grand-mother of the plaintiff. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for respondents urged strenuously to accept the reasoning and the final decree of the courts below.

( 4 ) THE points that arise for my consideration are ; (i) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the suit is barred by time is legal ond proper, and (ii) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the sale transaction was for legal necessity, can be gone into by this Court.

( 5 ) I was taken through Ex. D-1 the sale deed and the judgments of the courts below. It is nowhere stated in Ex. D-1 that the property sold belonged to all those persons shown there as vendors. They have not disputed that the property came to the plaintiff, who was minor then, through his grand-father. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondents, by way of abundant caution all concerned persons have joined as vendors. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that all the vendors including defendants 6 and 7 have sold the property as if it is their own and hence, the sale is void.

( 6 ) ADVERTING to the second contention of the learned counsel, it is true that the mother is shown as guardian of the minor in the sale deed and the father is also one of the vendors shown in the sale deed. The learned counsel submitted relying on a decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the case of Thomman parukkal v. Madhavan Arakaperembil, AIR 1955 TC 197

Click Here to Read the rest of this document