Ban to alienate property of the minors.

Gokulakrishnan, J.: Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants and the plaintiff is the Cross Objector. The suit is for a declaration that the plaint schedule mentioned house bearing Door No.28, Venkararaman Street, Srinivasa Avenue, Madras-28, belongs to the plaintiff absolutely and for directing defendants 2 and 3 to deliver vacant possession of the said house to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prays for directing defendants 2 and 3 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,600/- being the arrears of rent from June, 1980 to December, 1980 and Rs.2,000/- per month thereafter for use and occupation till they deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant is the wife of the third defendant and that defendants 2 and 3 are residing in the suit house on the strength of the lease deed entered into by the second defendant with the mother of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was a minor, the suit property was purchased by means of a sale deed dated 6-4-1963. Defendants 2 and 3 were inducted as tenants in the suit property by the mother of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was at the age of 14, the second defendant entered into an agreement of lease with one W.J.Fernando on 14-5-1976. The said lease agreement states that W.J.Fernando is representing the plaintiff as lessor. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in that lease agreement . it has been falsely mentioned that the plaintiff is the wife of the said Fernando. In and by the lease agreement dated 14-5-1976, the ground floor portion of the building was leased out to the second defendant. Subsequently, the defendant entered into a lease deed with the mother of the plaintiff for eleven months under which the second defendant has taken on lease the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that she is not bound by the two agreements referred to above, that defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to continue as tenants and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 do not apply to the premises in question. Surprisingly, the third defendant sent a letter dated 6-9-1980 to the plaintiff stating that defendants 2 and 3 would not pay any rent to the plaintiff since the first defendant had purchased the suit property. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is not a party to any of the transactions of the first defendant with reference to the house. The plaintiff questioned the purchaser. The purchase was also questioned by the second defendant by an application under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, wherein the second defendant has alleged that the property belongs to the plaintiff and that her mother M.R.Geetha and her late father M.R.Radha have no interest in the suit property. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is not bound by the decree obtained by the first defendant and the sale effected through execution proceedings in favour of the defendants will not bind the plaintiff in the suit. It is further averred in the plaint that the second defendant has entered . into an agreement dated 15-5-1976 with the mother of the plaintiff for the purchase of the suit property and that such an agreement of sale will not in any way bind the plaintiff. On 11-12-1980, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants mentioning the abovesaid facts and calling upon the second defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. To this notice, the defendants have not sent any reply. According to the plaintiff, she was a spinster, that she never married Fernando, that the alleged agreement entered into by the second defendant with the said Fernando is not binding on her, that the mother of the plaintiff had no right to enter into an agreement of sale on 15-5-1976 as well as the lease agreement in December, 1976 and that the plaintiff is entitled to ignore these two agreements. The plaintiff has also averred in the