The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to file a Suit to set aside alienations made by a natural guardian within the prescribed period, as per the principles laid down in various judgments and the applicability of the Limitation Act.

1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.153 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.229 of 1992 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.

2. The plaintiffs in the Suit are the appellants in the above Second Appeal and the respondents are the defendants in the Suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S. No.229 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram for declaration and for recovery of possession.

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs in the Suit are as follows:

.(1) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to one Petha Gounder, the paternal grand-father of the plaintiffs. Petha Gounder had 2 sons and 3 daughters. Petha Gounder’s wife is Sengeni Ammal. His daughters are Poorani Ammal, Pavunammal and Vellachi Ammal. The sons are Kannan and Balaraman. The plaintiffs are the sons of Kannan. Balaraman’s wife is Lakshmi Ammal and they had a son by name, Palanivel.

.(ii) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties and other properties are the separate properties of Petha Gonder, who purchased those properties under registered Sale Deeds from various persons. Petha Gounder was enjoying the properties till his life time. On 15. 1971, the said Petha Gounder executed a registered Will bequeathing his properties in favour of his sons Kannan and Balaraman. As per the Will, Kannan and Balaraman are entitled to the properties in equal moieties to be enjoyed till their life time, without any power of alienation and after their life time, their male heirs are to take their share of the properties absolutely. The Will further provides that if any one of them namely, Kannan or Balaraman dies without leaving any male heirs, the male heirs of other sharers are to take the entire properties absolutely. Petha Gounder died on 211. 1971 and the registered Will dated 15. 1971 came into effect. The said Will is the last Will and testament of Petha Gounder.

(iii) According to the plaintiffs, Petha Gounder’s wife Sengeni Ammal died on 2. 1982. Balaraman died in 1983 and Kanan died on 12. 1984. Palanivel is the only son of Balaraman. Palanivel died on 12. 1986 before attaining majority. Palanivel’s only heir is her mother Lakshmi Ammal and she has executed registered release deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 23. 1986 for valid consideration. Therefore, by virtue of the settlement deed, the plaintiffs are entitled to all the properties of Petha Gounder absolutely.

.(iv) According to the plaintiffs, by Sale Deed dated 112. 1981, Balaraman sold item Nos.1 to 3. The said Balaraman also sold item No.6 and a portion of item No.7 by two Sale Deeds dated 30.3.1981 and 33. 1981 in favour of the first defendant, allegedly as a guardian of his son Palanivel. Likewise, Balaraman has sold Item No.6 in favour of the second defendant by a registered Sale Deed dated 23. 1982. The Sale Deeds dated 112. 1981 and 23. 1982 are void and Balaraman had no right or authority to alienate the properties. The alienation were not for any legal necessity and they had no sanction by the competent Court of law. The Sale Deeds are not supported by any consideration. The alienation effected by Balaraman, without authority, are not binding upon the plaintiffs.

.(v) According to the plaintiff, the defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit properties based upon the void Sale Deeds. The plaintiff alone are entitled to the suit properties absolutely. The plaintiff issued lawyer’s notice to the defendants on 22. 1991 to which the defendants gave a reply through their counsel on 23. 1991. The properties are not the joint family properties of Petha Gouder and his sons Balaraman and Kannan. The said Petha Gounder cannot execute any Will over the undivided share of his two sons. The truth and genuineness of the Will dated 15. 1971 has been affirmed by the decree in O.S. No.447 of 1973