S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—

This appeal which is filed against the judgment of Kailasam, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, raises a question of limitation. The appellants with their elder brother constituted a Hindu joint family. They instituted a suit (which has given rise to this appeal) for setting aside a sale of a joint family property effected by the latter in the year 1942 (28th June, 1118, M.E.) in favour of the respondent and for recovery of possession of that property. At the time of the sale, the appellants were minors. Their mother, as their natural guardian joined her eldest son and executed the document.

On 21st January, 1953, admittedly more than three years after the appellants attained the age of majority, but within 12 years from the date of the alienation, the present suit was instituted. The alienee pleaded inter alia, that the suit must be held to be barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Both the Courts below without much discussion overruled the plea of limitation. They concurrently found that the sale was supported by consideration only in part and they passed a conditional decree for possession in favour of the appellants and against the respondent on payment by the former of a sum of 1,222 fanams — the actual consideration paid for the purchase by the respondent. This decree has been set aside on Second Appeal by Kailasam, J., on the ground that the appellants being eo nomine parties to and represented in the transaction by their mother, Article 44 of the Limitation Act would apply and that the claim for recovery of possession would be barred.

The only question for consideration in this appeal is that where in a sale of joint family property by the manager, a minor member of the family is represented eo nomine in the transaction by his guardian, it would be obligatory upon him to have it set aside before he can claim recovery of possession of the property on the ground that the alienation was not justified.

Article 44 of the Limitation Act provides a period of three years for suit by a ward who has attained majority to set aside a transfer of property by guardian, from the date when the ward attains majority. The two relevant requirements of the Article so far as the present case is concerned are: (1) the property which had been alienated by his guardian should have belonged to the minor, and (2) the transaction by the guardian should be voidable and not a void one as in the latter case there would be no need to set it aside.

A minor member of a joint Hindu family has undoubtedly an interest in the joint family property. He can, for example (if it be for his benefit) sue for partition and separate possession of his share of the properties. But all the same, the property cannot be regarded as his individual property. The question then is whether in regard to such property the natural guardian of the minor can by a conveyance (even if it be for necessity) pass title to the purchaser of the minor’s interest in the joint family property. If he can do so the minor will be bound to set aside the alienation and Article 44 would apply. Otherwise there would be no need to have the transactions set aside and the minor who wants to repudiate the transaction can sue for recovery of possession from the alienee within the period prescribed by Article 144.

Before referring to decided cases on the question it will be useful to advert briefly to the principles. In a joint Hindu family, the right of management of property inheres in the manager. If the family consists of a minor member his guardian will not be entitled to separate possession of the minor’s share or even to interfere with the exclusive right of the kartha to manage. The position however will be different where the minor is the sole surviving member of the joint Hindu family. In such a case there being no manager his guardian can have custody of his property. This rule has been, if we may so succinctly set out in Ramachandra Vasu Deo v. Krishnarao

Click Here to Read the rest of this document