COMMON JUDGMENT

Common substantial questions of law arising in the appeals are the following:

i. Is a minor, who repudiates an alienation of his property by a defacto guardian, always bound to restore the benefits derived by him?

ii. Is the minor under all circumstances liable to compensate the purchaser of property, either personally or out of his assets, in the event he succeeds in establishing that the alienation is void?

iii. What is the liability of the defacto guardian who represented the minor in the document of alienation?

iv. Is the purchaser entitled to claim title to a property purchased in the name of the minor by utilizing the sale consideration provided by the former?

For the sake of convenience, R.S.A.No.626 of 2009 is taken as the leading case, which is the appeal against O.S.No.338 of 1987. The parties and documents are hereinafter referred to in the rank in the above suit.

RSA Nos.885/2006 and 626/2009 2

2. Facts, in nut shell: O.S.No.338 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad is a suit for declaration that Ext.A2 sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant, who is the sister of the quondam minor plaintiff, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void an