Rajamannar, C.J.-This appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore involves an interesting question of law on which there is no direct authority. The facts necessary for a disposal of this appeal are: One Rama Reddi died in or about 1900, leaving behind him surviving his widow, Sinna Gangammal and his mother Peria Gangammal. A posthumous daughter, Nanjammal, was born to him subsequently. He left behind him considerable properties. Sinna Gangammal, as the widow, succeeded to Rama Reddi’s estate. She died in or about 1922, and after her death, Nanjammal, her daughter, succeeded. She died on 1st May, 1934. She had two sons, Rangaswami Reddi and Muthuswami Reddi, who became entitled to the estate as reversioners to their maternal grandfather, Rama Reddi. Sinna Gangammal and Nanjammal had made alienations of the properties which had belonged to Rama Reddi and had devolved on them. By two sale deeds, dated 31st March, 1937 and 8th April, 1947, Rangaswami Reddi on his behalf and as guardian of his minor brother, Muthuswami Reddi, conveyed all the properties to which they were entitled as reversioners to the appellant before us, Thayammal. In the first of these sale deeds (Exhibit A-3) it was provided that the purchaser should file a suit in pursuance of the sale and obtain delivery of possession and that the two vendors shall also join with her and file the suit as plaintiffs and see that possession was given to the purchaser. It was further provided that the vendors themselves shall collect the income from the properties from the date of their mother’s death till the date of the sale. On 9th April, 1947, the suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed by three plaintiffs, namely, Thayammal, the purchaser, Rangaswami Reddi and Muthuswami Reddi. Muthuswami Reddi was still a minor and was represented by Rangaswami Reddi as his next friend. Paragraph 14 of the plaint contained the following prayers:

“(a) declare that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the plaint properties and order the defendant to deliver possession of the plaint properties to the 1st plaintiff;

(b) order that an account be taken as regards the income due to the 2nd plaintiff from 1st May, 1934 to 31st March, 1947;

(c) decree further mesne profits to the 1st plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,000 per year;

(d) the defendants do deliver possession of the B schedule properties to the 1st plaintiff;

(e) to order the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs;

(f) to grant such and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.”

The suit, as already mentioned, was filed on 9th April, 1947, more than twelve years after the date of the death of the last limited owner on 1st May, 1934. It was, therefore, barred by limitation. But it was alleged in the plaint that the second plaintiff, Rangaswami Reddi, was born on 19th December, 1928, and the third plaintiff, Muthuswami Reddi was born on 7th April, 1931 and as both of them were minors when the reversionary right opened to them in May, 1934, the suit was not barred by limitation, under sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Limitation Act.

The third plaintiff, Muthuswami Reddi, became a major on 7th April, 1949. On 5th July, 1949, he executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the first defendant, Rangaswami Reddi, in and by which for a consideration of a sum of Rs.2,000 Muthuswami relinquished all his right and interest in the subject-matter of the suit. The deed also contained the following further recitals:

“The sale deed executed by my elder brother to Thayammal is only nominal. The debts recited in the said sale deed are false. There was bo cash available at all for payment. I did not get any benefit on account of the said sale. My elder brother had no right or justification to sell away my share. The said sale cannot however bind me. without myself prosecuting the suit in the Sub-Court O.S.No.108 of 1947, I shall, so far as I am concerned, present

Click Here to Read the rest of this document