Honble MOHAPATRA, J.–One Ninge Gowda was the original owner of the pro- perty in dispute. He died leaving two daughters namely Smt. Sakamma, respondent No.10 herein, and Smt. Madamma, respondent No.11 herein. When Smt.Sakamma was a minor, her sister Smt. Madamma purportedly acting as her guardian, sold her share of the property left by Ninge Gowda to Madhogowda, appellant herein by a registered Sale Deed dated 24.4.1961. It is the case of the appellant that the share of the minor Smt. Sakamma was sold to collect funds for her marriage. The appellant was put in possession of the property and he continues in possession of the same till date.

(2). Smt. Sakamma attained majority sometime in 1961-62. She sold her share of the property to Ankegowda, predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein, by the registered Sale Deed dated 1.7.1967. Since there was a dispute regarding possession of the property, Ankegowda initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srirangapatna which was registered as Criminal Misc. 7/67-68. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate held that the appellant was in possession of the property on the date of the preliminary order and he would continue to remain in possession of the same till dispossessed by the competent Court.

(3). Thereafter Ankegowda (plaintiff) filed Original Suit No. 69/69, in the Court of the Munsif, Srirangapatna seeking a declaration of title, for partition of the share of his vendor Smt. Sakamma and for delivery of possession of the same to him citing Smt. Sakamma (defendant No. 1), Smt. Madamma (defendant No. 2) and S. Madhegowda (defendant No. 3) as parties. The Learned Munsif dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by Ankegowda, Regular Appeal No. 44/78, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Srirangapatna proved unsuccessful. The learned Civil Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 24.7.1979.

(4). The trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit on recording the concurrent finding that Smt. Sakamma (Defendant No. 1) had no valid title in the property on 1.7.1967, the date on which she executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, since her interest in the suit property had already been sold in favour of S. Madhegowda (Defendant No. 3) by the registered sale deed dated 24.4.1961 executed by her sister Smt. Madamma (Defendant No. 2). The Courts further held that Smt. Sakamma could not have validly sold the suit property to the plaintiff without getting the sale deed dated 24.4.1961 annulled by filing a suit within three years of attaining majority. The decisions were based on the notion that the sale deed executed by Smt. Madamma in favour of Madhegowda was not void but voidable only.

(5). Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, successors-in-interest of Ankegowda, filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1134/79 in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the judgment/decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court by its judgment rendered on 11.01.1993 allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment/decree of the Courts below and held that the respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to half-share in the suit property, ordered for partition and delivery of possession of their share out of the same. The application filed for review of the judgment C.P. (FR) No. 937/97 was dismissed by the order dated 8.9.1997. Hence, these appeals by the defendant.

(6). The question that falls for determination in the case relates to competence of Smt. Madamma to sell the interest of her minor sister Smt. Sakamma in the property as her guardian. If the question is answered in the affirmative and it is held that Smt. Madamma was competent to alienate the share of her minor sister as her guardian, then the trial Court and the first Appellate Court were right in holding that the transaction of sale was voidable one and Smt. Sakamma having failed to rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document