Necessity of obtaining permission from the District Court for the sale of a minor's property and limitations of the High Court's interference in second appeal cases.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2008 made in A.B. No. 124 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi confirming the judgment and Decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, dated 28.10.2004 made in O.S. No. 392 of 1999.

2. The suit O.S. No. 392 of 1999 has been filed by the respondent through his father praying for a decree for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 22.2.1999 executed by the respondent’s mother Thangamani in favour of the appellant in respect of half share of the property in ‘A’ Schedule and for declaration that the respondent is entitled to half share in the veil, motor and electricity service connection to the well mentioned in the ‘A Schedule Property.

3. In the plaint in O.S. No. 392 of 1999, it was the case of the respondent (plaintiff) that the property in S. No. 112/4 and other properties were in possession of Thangammal and the well was dug in the said property and electricity connection was also obtained. The said Thangammal executed a Sale Deed dated 23.6.1995 in respect of half share along with the well and service connection and one acre of land in the ‘B’ Schedule Property to the appellant. The Sale Deed executed by the respondent’s mother in respect of the suit property belonging to the minor is void as permission of the District Court has not been obtained before selling the property of the minor. Accordingly, the respondent has prayed for a Decree of cancellation of the Sale Deed and for declaration as well as Permanent Injunction.

4. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing Written Statement wherein it was his contention that the suit property is joint family property, consisting of the respondent his father Umapathy and Umapathy’s father Ramasami. The suit property was purchased in the name of the minor from the income of the joint family and only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was given to Thangammal and the balance consideration for the Sale Deed was decided to be settled for the loan amounts due to one Thangavel Udaiyer and to the Chinnasalem Cooperative Bank by the said Thangammal. The family of the respondent failed to pay the loan amount and as such, the Sale Deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in respect of the property in S. No. 112/3,4,8 having an extent of one acre, along with well and motor by Thangamani Ammal Ramasamy Udaiyar. From the consideration so received from the sale, the dues were paid. The document was executed by the respondent’s mother as guardian of the minor. In such circumstances, the appellant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The matter was taken up for trial and on the side of the respondent Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-15 were marked and hi s father was examined as a P.W.1. On the side of the appellant, Exhibit B-1 to Exhibit B-5 were marked and D.W.s 1 and 2 were marked.

6. The learned Trial Judge after consideration of the matter opined that the respondent has proved his case for a decree of declaration and consequential injunction and accordingly, the suit was decreed.

7. The judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004 in O.S. No. 392 of 1999 was taken up in first appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi in A.S. No. 124 of 2005 and the said appeal was also dismissed by confirming the judgment, and Decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree, the unsuccessful appellant has come up by way of second appeal.

8. I have heard Thiru P. Valliappan, the learned counsel for the appellant.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the property was sold by the mother of the minor to discharge the loan taken for the benefit of the minor and as such, the sale effected in favour of the appellant was valid and binding on the respondent.

10. I have considered the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. The dispute in the present case relates to the property transferred by the mother of the minor respon