Whether title can be acquired on the basis of void sale deed.

Thangamani, J.

Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1501 of 1980 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. They are the daughters of one Krishnama Naidu and his wife Papammal alias Thulasiammal. One P.K.Venugopal is their brother. In 1938 Krishnama Naidu was convicted by the Sessions Court, Coimbatore on a murder charge and he was hanged. It is the case of the appellants that the suit property measuring 8 acres and 36 cents in Survey No.4, Goodalore village is their ancestral lands. After the death of their father, they inherited the same, as his legal heirs. Respondents are their distant dayathies. Since the two sisters were married, their younger brother P.K. Venugopal was mostly remaining with the respondents and cultivating the lands with their assistance. He was treated as one among the members of the respondent’s family. From 1978 his whereabouts were not known. The appellants suspect some foul play on the part of the respondents in the disappearance of their brother. Now the appellants have come to know that their brother is no more. On account of long separation from her only son, their mother expired on 5. 1979. It appears that the respondents have managed to obtain Ex.B-2sale deed on 24. 1954 in their favour in respect of the suit property by the exercise of fraud and undue influence on their brother. Their brother was born only on 27. 1936 and so he was a minor when Ex.B-2 was purported to have been executed on 24. 1954. The said deed of sale is void ab initio. The appellants understand that the respondents have taken the signature of Venugopal when he was not in a mood to understand and without informing its contents to him. The consideration for the sale is a paltry sum of Rs.10,500 while the suit property was worth more than Rs.2,00,000 in 1954. It is now worth more than Rs.15,00,000. The appellants came to know of the sale deed only on 212. 1979 after seeing the paper publication Ex.A-5. Hence the suit to declare that Ex.B-2 sale deed is null and void and that the suit lands belong to the joint family of the appellants and to direct the respondents to deliver possession of the property to them.

.2. The respondents pleaded that the suit property is agricultural lands. Since the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act 18 of 1937 did not apply to agricultural lands, on the death of Krishnama Naidu in 1938 Venugopal became entitled to the same as the sole surviving coparcener. Neither widow Thulasiammal nor the appellants inherited any right in the suit property. Thulasiammal had only a right of maintenance. On 24. 1954 he sold the suit land to the respondents for Rs. 10,500. Out of the sale price a sum of Rs.5,000 was retained by the respondents for which they executed a mortgage deed in favour of Venugopal. The mortgage amount also carried interest. On 12. 1954 Venugopal executed the original of Ex.B-45 maintenance deed in favour of his mother.

After the death of their father Krishnama Naidu, the appellants were not. enjoying the suit property. Venugopal was always living with his mother in the village. That the respondents are responsible for the long absence of Venugopal from the village, that he was encouraged to remain with them and that Ex.B-2 was obtained by the exercise of fraud or undue influence are false. Ever since the purchase on 24. 1954 the respondents are in uninterrupted possession of the property in their own right. Venugopal was born on 11. 1935 and hence he was sui juris on the date of Ex.B-2.

3. The trial Court has held that Venugopal the vendor under Ex.B-2 was born on 27. 1936 and hence Venugopal could not have conveyed valid title in favour of the respondents under the same. However, it upheld the claim of the defendants that they have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession. Accordingly it granted only the declaration that Ex.B-2 is null and void and dismissed the suit in other respondents and directed parties to bear their respective