Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4468
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Lakshmiammal & Others
Versus
Nagammal & Others
S.A.No.1256 of 2008
Decided on : 02-11-2012
For the Appellants:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:D. Rajagopal, Advocate.
The validity of a sale deed executed by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor, and the unassailability of the sale if not challenged within three years of the minor attaining majority.
Headnote:
Title - Property Dispute - Indian Registration Act, 1908, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute over the ownership of a land parcel. The original plaintiff claimed ownership based on a gift settlement deed, while the defendants claimed title based on a sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had proved their title and possession over the suit property, and the lower appellate court's decree was erroneous and perverse.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to declaration, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction, as well as the correct valuation and court fee, and the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed executed by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor is voidable, but becomes unassailable if not challenged within three years of the minor attaining majority. The court also found that the lower appellate court erred in its interpretation of the sale deed and the lack of necessity for a sale deed in favor of the husband of a previous owner.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the lower appellate court's decree was set aside, and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit was restored.
This second appeal was filed initially by Lakshmiammal, the 4th defendant in the original suit and the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant Sundaram, namely Adhi Ramani and Meena Sangeetha. During the pendency of the second appeal, by an order dated 13.04.2010 made in M.P.No.2 of 2010, V.P. Maragatha Mani who purchased the property from appellants 1 to 3 was impleaded as the 4th appellant. Respondents 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs 2 and 4 to 9. Respondents 8 and 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased third plaintiff Mylathal. Respondents 10 to 14 were defendants 6 to 10 in the original suit.
2. Original Suit No.3654 of 1996 was filed by Ayyanna Thevar, the sole plaintiff against Alamelu, Muthuswamy and Sundaram, the original defendants 1 to 3 for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property, namely northern most portion of S.No.279 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore City having an extent of 78 = cents, for a direction directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the said property and for grant of a mandatory injunction for the removal of the building put up in the above said property by the defendants. Since during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Ayyanna Thevar died, his legal representatives Nagammal, Mylathal, Subramani, Srinivasan, Daivathal, Malarveni, Damodaran and Vasanthamani were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 9. Similarly, on the death of the first defendant Alamelu, her legal representatives Lakshmiammal, Ramaswamy Thevar, Veluswamy, Kumar, Chandra and Manoharan were impleaded as Defendants 4 to 9. On the death of second defendant Muthuswamy, besides recording Defendants 4 to 9 as his legal representatives, 10th defendant Dhandapani was also impleaded as one of his legal representatives. During the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant Ramaswamy also died. No further steps were taken since his legal representatives were already existing defendants. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the suit and wherever necessary further descriptions are also made.
3. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff Ayyanna Thevar based on the following contentions:
The suit property originally belonged to one Arunachala Thevar, Son of Sonai Nanja Thevar having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 17.04.1905 registered as Document No.550 of 1905 in Office of the Registrar, Coimbatore. The said Arunachala Thevar divided the said property into southern half and northern half each measuring 1.57 acres and again divided the northern half into two portions each measuring 78 = cents. On 18.09.1910, the said Arunachala Thevar executed a gift settlement deed bearing Document No.1732 of 1910 in favour of his two daughters Kuppayammal and Unnamulaiammal in respect of northern most part of the suit survey field having an extent of 78 = cents. On the same day, 78 = cents immediately lying on the south of the property settled on Kuppayammal and Unnamulaiammal was given to his other daughter Lakshmiammal under a gift settlement deed bearing Document No.1731 of 1910. Thus, the northern half of the suit survey field having an extent of 1.57 acres became the property of Unnamulaiammal, Kuppayammal and Lakshmiammal. Out of the two donees under Document No.1732 of 1910, namely Kuppayammal and Unnamulaiammal, Kuppayammal died on 10.11.1932 leaving her daughter Rajammal as her only heir and the original plaintiff Ayyanna Thevar is the son of said Rajammal. The other donee Unnamulaiammal also died on 15.08.1950. Treating Ayyanna Thevar as her only heir, Unnamulaimmal also conveyed her interest in the house property belonging to her, which is not the subject matter of the suit, to the plaintiff since her two sons Nalappa and Thiruppathi died long back leaving no heir. Thus, the share of Unnamulaiammal also became the property of the original plaintiff Ayyanna Thevar. The Lakshmiammal, who got the southe
