The sale made by a guardian is voidable, but a suit to challenge it must be filed within the limitation period. Failure to challenge intervening sale deeds and non-joinder of necessary parties can lead to dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 passed in A.S.No.37 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.72 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli dated 06.11.2019, allow the Second Appeal.)

Common order:

1. Since both the Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in A.S.Nos.36 and 37 of 2020, they are taken up together for final disposal.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2016 and defendant in O.S.No.206 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant originally filed O.S.No.383 of 2014 before the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli for relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to him and for permanent injunction against the respondents not to interfere with his possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The said suit was transferred to Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli and renumbered as O.S.No.72 of 2016.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit filed by him, namely, O.S.No.72 of 2016 is that the suit property, which is 28.50 cents in Survey No.85/1B along with certain other properties belonged to his father, Muthukaruppa Pillai. He executed a Will on 17.10.1956 in respect of 96 cents in Survey No.85/1 and the suit schedule property forms part of the said total extent. As per the Will, the wife Lakshmiammal was entitled to sell half of the said extent, namely, 48 cents and utilise the sale consideration for the marriage expenses of the two daughters, Pichammal and Valliammal, who are the sisters of the appellant. As regards the remaining extent of 48 cents, the Will stated that Lakshmiammal shall have a life estate and after her death, the plaintiff/appellant would be entitled to 48 cents absolutely. However, contrary to the terms of the Will, the plaintiff/appellant''s mother Lakshmiammal sold the suit schedule property to one Arumugathevar on 29.07.1967. Thereafter, the said Arumugathevar sold the property to one Chelladuraithevar and Muthumaniammal on 22.05.1969. The said Chelladuraithevar and Muthumaniammal sold the property to one Balasubramaniyan and Muthu Vinayagam through two sale deeds dated 12.10.1990 and 27.03.1991. The above said persons Balasubramaniyan and Muthu Vinayagam in turn sold the property in favour of Sivakumar and others on 03.08.2007. The plaintiff''s mother expired on 05.06.2011.

4. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement stating that the sale deed in favour of Arumugathevar was valid in law. The plaintiff was then a minor and the sale deed was executed by his mother as a guardian. The terms of the sale deed reveals that the plaintiff''s mother had executed sale deed to meet out the educational expenses of the plaintiff and also to purchase another property in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was 16 years old on 29.07.1967. He ought to have filed the suit for declaring the said sale as null and void within three years of his attaining majority in 1969. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed in 1972. However, the suit is also bad, since Arumugathevar who initially purchased the property in 1967 was not made a party to the suit.

5. While so, the defendants/respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.206 of 2014 for permanent injunction against the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property. They had reiterated the submissions made in their written statement filed in the earlier suit and stated that the property has been in possession of their predecessors in title since 1967. The appellant filed a written statement stating that the sale made by his mother in favour of the said Arumugathevar was null and void and that he was entitled to the suit schedule property only after the death of his mother and hence, his suit was filed within limitat