The court ruled that minors cannot execute a sale deed, yet insufficient evidence was provided to substantiate the plaintiffs' claim of minority, leading to the dismissal of their suit.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned second appeal is filed by defendants assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below wherein plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and consequently, the defendants are directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs within a period of three months from today.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit contending that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by one Puttamma. Upon her death, the properties devolved upon her daughter Kariyamma, who is the mother of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and the wife of plaintiff No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Kariyamma died about 17 years prior to the institution of the suit. After her demise, plaintiff No.1 married the second wife, Eramma. The plaintiffs alleged that Eramma developed a hostile attitude towards plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant point of time. Consequently, plaintiff No.1 entrusted the care and custody of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 to one Sannakka, wife of Baggajja of Yalagatta Gollarahatty, Challakere Taluk, who is the maternal aunt of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiffs further stated that being illiterate, they did not take steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records after the death of Kariyamma. Nonetheless, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 asserted that they, along with plaintiff No.1, continued in exclusive possession of the suit lands.

4. The suit was filed alleging that in July 1995, when the defendants attempted to get their names mutated in the revenue records, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants were claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1986. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 specifically contended that they had never executed any such sale deed in favour of the defendants and alleged that the document was fabricated by the defendants in collusion with the attesting witnesses and the scribe. They therefore sought a declaration that the sale deed is null and void, along with consequential relief of possession. The plaintiffs further contended that they were minors on the date of the purported sale and hence legally incapable of executing any such conveyance.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2, the alleged purchasers, entered appearance and contested the suit. In their written statement, the defendants denied the plaint averments in toto. They contended that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, being the daughters of Kariyamma, inherited the properties exclusively and that plaintiff No.1, being only the husband of the deceased, is not a Class-I heir and therefore did not succeed to the suit properties. They further asserted that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 voluntarily executed the registered sale deed in their favour and thus, after an unexplained delay of nine years, the plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge a validly executed transaction. On these premises, the defendants claimed absolute title and lawful possession and sought dismissal of the suit.

6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. To prove that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were minors on the date of the alleged sale, the plaintiffs examined a Radiologist as