IMPORTANT POINT
A de facto guardian cannot alienate a minor's property without court permission, rendering such transactions void.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2008 passed in A.S.No.444 of 2004 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2001 passed in O.S.No.547 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

The defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the appellants. The first respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family of Subbiah Gounder, the father of the plaintiff. In the family partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father. After his death, his heirs divided the suit properties and the suit property was allotted to the share of plaintiff and his mother Periyakkal. After the death of plaintiff's mother, the petitioner has become absolute owner of the property. It was claimed by the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was minor, he lost both of his parents and the fourth defendant and others attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and therefore, the first defendant filed a suit for declaration of title, injunction and alternative prayer for partition in O.S.No.500 of 1981 and the said suit was decreed granting declaration and injunction. The appeal filed by the defendants therein was also dismissed. The first defendant and other defendants colluded together and brought out a sale, as if the minor plaintiff represented by first defendant sold the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 4 by a sale deed dated 22.04.1983 and 16.04.1983 respectively. The said sale effected by the first defendant without permission of the Court is a void transaction and the defendants 2 and 4 would not get any title under the same. The plaintiff after attaining majority, acquired knowledge about the alienation made by the first defendant and hence, laid a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendants in their written statement pleaded about the settlement deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the fifth defendant under registered settlement deed dated 18.09.1990. Since the second defendant has no title over the suit property, the said settlement deed will not convey any title to the 5th defendant. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. The first defendant remained ex parte and the suit was resisted by the other defendants by filing a written statement. It was claimed that the first defendant represented to the other defendants that he was in management of the properties of his grandson plaintiff and he wanted to sell the properties of the plaintiff in order to purchase some other property. The first defendant as guardian of plaintiff has sold Item 2 of the suit property in favour of second defendant for a consideration of Rs.4,600/- and item 3 was sold to fourth defendant for sale consideration of Rs.2,400/-. Out of the said consideration, the first defendant had purchased valuable land in the name of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.5,750/-. The property purchased in the name of the plaintiff has got more value than the property sold to the defendants. The plaintiff, having received substantial benefit from the transaction, cannot turn around and tell the sale deed in favour of the defendants as void transactions.

4. The 5th defendant in his separate written statement averred that item 2 of the suit property settled in his favour on 18.09.1990 and after settlement, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also averred by the 5th defendant that his settlor viz., second defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value witho