The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for challenging the alienation of property by the guardian is barred by limitation if not filed within 3 years from the date of attainment of majority by the plaintiffs.

1.The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, who have filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 14.8.1986 is null and void and for permanent injunction and also for partition of the suit properties and allotment of their shares.

2.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3. The suit property was originally purchased by one Munusamy, father of the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant, under the sale deed dated 27.5.1976 from Ayilu Naidu. Munusamy died about 12 years back, leaving behind him the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3. After the demise of Munusamy, the 2nd defendant, who is the elder brother of the plaintiffs was looking after the suit property, as the 'Kartha' of the family for and on behalf of the other family members also. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. But, the defendants 2 and 3 had alienated the entire suit property in favour of the 1st defendant on 14.8.1986 and the same is questioned in the suit, stating that the alienation made by the defendants 2 and 3 is null and void and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff's.

3.The 1st defendant filed a written statement, stating, though the suit property was purchased by Munusamy, it is not his self-acquired property. Munusamy got ancestral properties and in and out of the income derived from the ancestral properties, he had purchased the land from one Logi Reddiar and others and sold the same to Duraisamy and in and out of the said sale proceeds, Munusamy purchased the suit properties. After the death of Munusamy, the 2nd defendant was managing the property as a 'Kartha' of the family and the suit property was sold for the ceremonies and functions of the daughters in the family and also for the family expenses and also to discharge the family debts and therefore, the sale is valid and also binding upon the plaintiffs. It is also stated that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property for a valid consideration. He also contended that the suit is also barred by limitation.

4.A check slip was also issued, which reads as under:-

"On a careful perusal of the plaint, a court fee of Rs.2.25 paid under Section 37(1) of the Court Fees Act for the first relief and a court fee of Rs.30.50/- paid under Section 27(c) of the Court Fees Act for the third relief is correct. As far as second relief under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act declaring the sale deed dated, 14.8.1986 is null and void, the plaintiff has given valuation at Rs.400/- and a court fee of Rs.30.50/- paid, which is incorrect.

The plaintiff seeks remedy and prayed relief for the cancellation of the document dated 14.8.1986. The plaintiff wants to declare that the sale deed is null and void. Hence, the plaintiff has to pay necessary court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, on the value of the property, for which the document was executed. The money value mentioned in the document is Rs.14,500/-. Instead of paying court fee for the amount of Rs.14,500/- under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff has paid Rs.30.50/- under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act, valuing the property at Rs.400/-. Framing of suit under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not maintainable. The maintainability of the suit has to be decided after due notice and hearing of the parties concerned and also may be collected necessary deficit court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, after making necessary amendment and due notice and hearing of parties."

On the above said check slip, the court called upon the plaintiff's to file objections if any, and the plaintiff has also filed his objections, stating that by setting aside or declaring a particular document as null and void, if the person in whose favour the decree would be passed, is benefited to the tune of the amount cited in the document, then the court can compel the