A suit by a quondam minor to set aside an alienation of property by a natural guardian is governed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act, requiring filing within three years of attaining majority; alternatively, a claim under Article 109 requires filing within 12 years of possession, irrespective of which, the suit was time-barred.

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Though the respondents are served, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are served and unrepresented and notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient vide order dated 27.05.2013.

2. This second appeal is filed by plaintiffs praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010 passed in R.A.No.5/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in so far as dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.

3. The factual matrix of case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the appellants herein are the son and daughter of the respondent No.2/defendant No.2. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also the children of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property. It is contented that suit schedule property originally belongs to the grand-father of the appellants and the father of the respondent No.2 by name one Late Sri Honnurappa. The said Late Sri Honnurappa, had extensive agricultural properties, which were inherited by defendant No.2 and his brothers. After the death of Late Sri Honnurappa, all the ancestral joint family properties were partitioned among the brothers, as per the partition deed dated 05.10.1971. In the said partition deed, the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of respondent No.2. After partition, the appellants herein and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 being the joint family, started cultivating the lands peacefully and in joint cultivation, and the family of the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were also doing milk vending and flower business which flourished, as such, there was absolutely no necessity for the respondent No.2 to sell the joint family ancestral property along with other two defendants. Under these circumstances, the property was sold under the influence of the defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,81,250/- and the actual value of the property as on the date of sale was more than Rs.15,00,000/-. The suit schedule property is an ancestral property and plaintiffs have a right in the said property and when they come to know about the sale, after attaining the majority, they filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and declare that the sale deed dated 11.08.1995 is not binding on them.

4. The Trial Judge having answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ comes to the conclusion that without any legal necessity and for the benefit of the family, property was sold and consideration is not fully paid and suit is not filed in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 4. The Trial Court also answered issue No.4 as ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action for the suit and dismissed the same.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal of suit, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5/2010. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and it does not require any interference. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal would vehemently contend that the judgment of both the Courts are illegal, capacious and committed an error. Though the Trial Judge answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ and comes to the conclusion that suit is not co