ORDER.-The defendant is the appellant. The suit is to set aside the sale deed and for recovery of possession of the suit property with profits. Shortly the facts are that one Kandayya Servai for himself and as guardian of his minor daughter Kaliammal alias Chitravalli executed a sale deed on 21st October, 1959 marked as Exhibit B-2 in favour of one Jainullabdeen Rowther for Rs. 700. On 25th April, 1966 under Exhibit B-1 Jainullabdeen Rowther sold the suit property to the defendant. On 26th May, 1966 under Exhibit A-1 which is admittedly subsequent to Exhibit B-l the plaintiff took the sale deed from Kaliammal alias Chitravalli. After getting the sale deed the plaintiff filed the present suit on 14th June, 1963 to set aside the sale deed Exhibit B-2 and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also contended that Exhibit B-2 is not binding on the minor and that it was not for the benefit of the minor. The main defence seems to be that the sale under Exhibit B-8 in favour of Veerammal the mother of the vendor under Exhibit A-l was benami for Kandayya Servai and as such Exhibit B-2 is valid. In any event it was stated that the sale will be binding on the minor since it was for the necessity of the family. Further defence is that Kaliammal alone can avoid the sale under Exhibit B-2 by way of a suit and not the plaintiff who is a transferee from Kaliammal.

2. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the sale deed under Exhibit B-8 is not a benami sale deed, that the property actually belonged to Veerammal the mother of Kaliammal alias Chitravalli, that the sale under Exhibit B-2 was not for the benefit of the minor and that the right to sue for setting side the sale is transferable and hence the suit is maintainable.

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Courts below the defendant preferred the above second appeal.

4. Mr. Thyagaraja Iyer the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though he cannot successfully canvass the findings of the Courts below as regards the benami nature of the transaction and also the fact that it was not for the benefit of the minor,he can canvass that the right that was transferred under Exhibit A-l is only the right to sue for setting aside the sale deed Exhibit B-2 ana that right is hit by section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. If that be so the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Various decisions were submitted both by the learned counsel for the appellant and also by the learned counsel for the respondent herein, which I will presently deal with. Arunachalam Chetty, In re1, was mainly relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent herein. In this Bench decision of our High Court a minor’s property was sold by his mother as guardian. On attaining majority he ignored the sale by his mother and conveyed the property to the plaintiff who sued for possession. It was held that by selling the property to the plaintiff on the ground that the prior sale by his mother was not binding on him, the plaintiff’s vendor had chosen to avoid the prior sale and that the plaintiff could sue for recovery of possession of the property without a prayer for setting aside the original sale by the mother. Thus it is clear from this Bench Decision that any alienee from the minor after he has become major can successfully file a suit to set aside the sale effected by the guardian of the minor without however being hit by section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. This view was further elaborated in Naghabhushana Rao v. Gowramma2 In this judgment at page 64 a Bench of the Andhra High Court held:

“On a review of the various cases at the bar, we are of the view that as the alienations of a de facto manager or guardian are not binding on the minor unless they are for legal necessity or for benefit to the estate, in case the ex-minor transfers his rights in such alienated property it must follow that what he has transferred is not a mere right to sue but his entire rights in the proper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document