Only a legally appointed guardian can represent minors in property transactions, as established under Christian Succession laws, invalidating unauthorized deeds.

JUDGMENT

The legal representatives of the plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and also to set aside documents. Recovery of possession of the two properties on the strength of title was also claimed. The trial court partly decreed the suit granting a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property other than for ingress and egress to the respective properties allotted to them. The documents registered as 4240, 4241 and 4242 dated 11-12-1985 are found to be invalid and hence those documents were set aside. Though mandatory injunction was claimed pertaining to plaint B, C and D schedule property, that claim was disallowed.

2. In the appeal, the lower appellate court found that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property. It was found that the eastern boundary of the plaint A schedule property is a river. Defendants 2 and 18 had put up a Chinese fishing net which is the plaint C schedule property. Plaint B and D schedule properties are the sheds alleged to have been put up by the 2nd defendant. It was found that the plaintiffs could not prove that they have got exclusive right over the suit property and so, it was held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the mandatory injunction as prayed for. It was held that “puduval pathivu” will be a part of the plaint A schedule property but in fact no claim was made by the plaintiff. The legal representatives of the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal.

3. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in this Second Appeal:-

1) What is the law relating to guardianship of Minors among Christians in the erstwhile Cochin State ?

2) Is a document executed by the elder brother as guardian of the younger brother among Christians in the Cochin State in the absence of the any statute governing the subject void or voidable ?

3) Can the defendants 1 & 2 question the validity of Exts. B2 and A1 after such a long lapse of time when Acho and Bernad themselves during their lifetime had not chosen to challenge them during their lifetime ?

4. Should not they seek to set aside the documents within the period of limitation allowed by law ?

5. Are the courts below justified in law in non-suiting the plaintiffs as having no title in entirety when even defendants 1 & 2 have only contended that they are co-owners ?

4. The evidence would show that the property originally belonged to Bavu Pailoo. He has four sons Mersely, Grigory, Acho and Bernad. On the death of Bavu Pailoo the plaint schedule property devolved upon his four sons Mersely, Grigory, Acho and Bernad. The first defendant is the widow and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Acho, one of the sons of Bavu Pailoo. The other three sons of Bavu Pailoo also died subsequently. It is contended by defendants 1 to 3 that they are the legal representatives of deceased Acho and so they are entitled to get ¼ share in the property left behind by Bavu Pailoo.

5. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Mersely, the eldest son of Bavu Pailoo. The first defendant contended that plaintiffs have no subsisting right over the plaint schedule property and even if they had any right that right was lost by ouster, adverse possession and limitation. It was also contended that the plaintiffs' father and Grigory the brother of Mersely had executed an assignment deed on 22-08-1089 M.E; in favour of one Varu Thomman. Varu Thomman later executed an assignment deed on 3-12- 1104 M.E. in favour of plaintiffs' mother.

6. The evidence would show that at the time of the assignment deed dated 22-08-1089 M.E. Bernad and Acho were minors but it was contended that they were represented by the elder brother Mersely. Mersely is the father of the plaintiffs. Defendants contend that Mersely had no legal right to create any document pertaining to the right of Acho and Bernad over the property which devolved upon them consequent to the death of their father Bav