Back
Madras High Court
NATESAN
Rajalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Minor Ramachandran - Respondent
Decided On : 03/11/1966
HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 - SECTION 11 - GUARDIANSHIP - APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN - VALIDITY - ALIENATION OF PROPERTY BY DE FACTO GUARDIAN - VOID - MESNE PROFITS - LIABILITY OF VENDEE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, minors, filed a suit for declaration of title to properties and possession of the same with claim for mesne profits. The defendants were the appellants in the second appeal. The suit properties originally belonged to Anjalai Ammal, wife of Arumugha Padayachi, the putative father of the plaintiffs. Anjalai Ammal, under a deed of settlement, settled the suit properties on the minor plaintiffs. Arumugha Padayachi, the guardian, despite the injunction in the settlement deed, mortgaged and sold the properties to the defendants. The trial court and the lower appellate court held that the alienations were void under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Arumugha Padayachi was not a legal guardian of the minor plaintiffs and that the alienations of the suit properties by him were void under Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956. The court also held that the first defendant, who had purchased the properties under a conveyance from Arumugha Padayachi and Anjalai Ammal, was liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs from the date of deposit by the plaintiffs of the sum of Rs. 880, which was the amount of the mortgage debt.
Issues: 1. Whether Arumugha Padayachi was a legal guardian of the minor plaintiffs? 2. Whether the alienations of the suit properties by Arumugha Padayachi were void under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956? 3. Whether the first defendant was liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Arumugha Padayachi was not a legal guardian of the minor plaintiffs because he was not appointed as such by the will of the minor's father or mother, by a court, or under any enactment relating to any court of wards. 2. The court held that the alienations of the suit properties by Arumugha Padayachi were void under Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 because he was a de facto guardian and not a legal guardian. 3. The court held that the first defendant was liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs from the date of deposit by the plaintiffs of the sum of Rs. 880, which was the amount of the mortgage debt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal subject to the modification of the decree against the first defendant in respect of mesne profits.
2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Anjalai Animal, wife of Arumugha Padayachi, the putative father of the plaintiffs in the suit. They are the children of Arumugha Padayachi by his concubine Marimuthu Animal. Anjalai Ammal having no male issue, under the deed of settlement Ex. A. 1 dated 25-10-1955, settled the suit properties on the minor plaintiffs. The deed of settlement refers to Arumugha Padayachi as their protector, father and guardian, and it is recited therein that the properties which had been settled on them are on their behalf placed in possession of their guardian, the said Arumugha Padayachi. Certain conditions are imposed under the deed enjoining the settles to maintain Arumugha Padayachi during his lifetime, the properties to be taken by the plaintiffs after his lifetime, with absolute rights. A charge is provided in favour of Arumugha Padayachi for his maintenance. The settlement deed referring to a mortgage over the properties in favour of one Subramania Pillai and directing payment of Rs. 880 towards that mortgage provides that to the extent of the said sum of Rs. 880, if it becomes necessary for its discharge, the guardian will have power to mortgage the properties and borrow, or sell a portion of the properties. The properties are valued at Rs. 1500 and there is specific prohibition against any alienation of the properties except to the extent of and for the purposes provided in the deed as above set out. The settler, it may be stated, has, under the settlement deed, parted only with a share in the items she owned retaining to herself the remaining share. Arumugha Padayachi did not pay the mortgage the sum of Rs. 880 as provided under the settlement deed and the mortgage filed the suit O. S. 334 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram, for recovery of the mortgage amount. The plaintiffs were parties to that suit and a preliminary decree for the full mortgage amount had been passed against the plaintiffs and Anjalai Ammal. The guardian, despite the injunction in the settlement deed, first mortgaged items 3 and 4 of the suit properties to the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 200 on 2-6-1956 and later on 1-12-1956 along with Anjalai Ammal he sold the items for a sum of Rs. 500 under Ex. B. 2. It is the finding that no portion of the consideration went in discharge of the mortgage in favour of Subramania Pillai. Again with Anjalai Ammal as co-vender, under Ex. B. 3 dated 1-12-1956 the remaining properties settled on the minor plaintiffs, that is, items 1 and 2, were conveyed to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 3500. Anjlai Ammal had joined in these two conveyances as co-vendor, since the share in the properties which she had retained has also been the subject of the conveyances. The consideration for the latter sale deed is made up of four items (1) a sum of Rs. 880 payable by the plaintiffs towards the mortgage in favour of Subramania Pillai, (2) a sum of Rs. 1620 the balance payable for the mortgage as paid by Anjalai Ammal (3) a sum of Rs. 130 cash received by Anjalai Ammal and (4) Rs. 870 left with the vendees to be paid on the minor settles becoming majors and executing a registered deed of release.
3. The trial court refused to accept the plea that it would not have been possible for Arumugha Padayachi to dispose of part only of the properties settled and pay off the mortgage to the extent of Rs. 880. There is a finding by the trial court that the vendees have not acted in good faith at all. As regards the sale under Ex. B-2, there can be no question at all about its invalidity. It is wholly beyond the powers of the guardian. As regards the sale for Rs. 3500 evidenced by Ex. B-3, the appellate court is of the view tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
