Provisions of Limitation Act applicable.

The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He is the son of one Ramayya Goundan who died some time in 1931. The family of Ramayya Goundan consisted at that time, of his two wives, Ponnammal and Ramayee, two daughters by his first wife, Ponnammal, the elder of whom, Marayee, was married to Marappan Goundan,the second defendant in the suit and the younger Karuppayee was unmarried and the appellant who was his son by the second wife, Ramayee and at that time a minor aged about ten years. The properties which Ramayya Goundan owned were a land known as Kandan Kadu in which he owned 3 acres and 81½ cents, and a land called Thattan Kadu in which he owned 2 acres and 82 cents subject to a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 450 of which half was payable by Mm, and a house. Shortly after his death, disputes arose between the two widows and it is stated that they were settled by a panchayat. On 10th December, 1932, three documents came into existence, and it is the validity of one of them that is in question in the present litigation. Ex. D-3 is a deed of release executed by Ponnammal in favour of Ramayee giving up her right of maintenance over the estate; and Ex. D-5, is a deed of maintenance executed by Ramayee in favour of Ponnammal fixing her annual maintenance at Rs. 50 and charging the land known as Kandan Kadu for its payment. Ex. D-1 is a deed of gift of the land known as Thattan Kadu executed by Ramayee in favour of Karuppayee the second daughter of Ponnammal. It is this alienation that is attacked by the appellant as void and not binding on him. On 14th April, 1943, Karuppayee sold the properties, gifted to her under Ex. D-1, to the second defendant her sister’s husband for a consideration of Rs. 875, under Ex. D-2 and he is the contesting defendant in this action.

The plaintiff challenges the validity of the gift under Ex. D-1 on the ground that Ramayee acted in the transaction on her own behalf and not as his guardian; and that even viewed as an alienation by his guardian, it is not binding on him for the reason that it was beyond the power of the guardian to make a gift and that it could not be supported on the ground of any necessity. The defendant, apart from demurring to these allegations, pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after the plaintiff had attained majority and that he was further estopped from disputing the transaction as he had attested the sale deed, Ex. D-2. The learned District Munsiff of Erode held that Ex. D-1, was not executed by Ramayee as guardian of the plaintiff, that even otherwise the gift was invalid as it was greatly disproportionate to the status of the family, that there was no bar of limitation and that further the plaintiff was not estopped by his attestation of Ex. D-2 from raising the question of the validity of Ex. D-1. In the result he decreed the suit. The second defendant appealed against this decree and the District Judge who heard the appeal came to a different conclusion. He held that the gift must be taken to have been made by Ramayee as guardian of the plaintiff and that as the suit had been filed more than three years after the plaintiff had attained majority it was barred under Article 44 of the Limitation Act. In this view he did not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the alienation was binding on the plaintiff though he indicated that he would be prepared to uphold it as valid. He also held that the plaintiff must have attested Ex. D-2 with the knowledge of its contents and therefore, he was estopped from disputing the validity of Ex. D-1. In the result he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Against this judgment, the plaintiff prefers this second appeal.

The first question that arises for determination is whether the suit is barred by limitation. If it is, then no further question arises. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that as Rarnayee was the natural guardian of the plaintiff