A life interest does not confer absolute ownership; agreements executed by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor are valid unless avoided within the limitation period.

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jayankondam, dismissing the application in E.A.No.143 of 2018 in E.P.No.03 of 2017 in O.S.No.102 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner/third party under Section 151 of CPC . 2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition in brief are as follows:

(i) The application in E.A.No.143 of 2018 was filed under Section nd 151 of CPC by the civil revision petitioner, who is the wife of the 2 respondent/judgement-debtor and a third party to the suit proceedings, seeking to exclude the properties (1) S.No.293/1C4 – 68 cents and (2) 293/2C – 19 cents situated at Thirukkalappur Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk from the execution proceedings.

(ii) In the said application, the civil revision petitioner pleaded that as far as the properties comprised S.No.293/1C4– 68 cents and 293/2C – 19 centssituated at Thirukkalappur Village, were originally settled in favour of her nd son on 11.06.1983 by her husband, the 2 respondent/Judgement-Debtor. In that settlement deed, according to the revision petitioner, she was given life interest and vested interest was created in favour of her then-minor son. She has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said properties. While so, subsequent to the execution of the settlement, an agreement was said to have nd been entered by the 2 respondent on 04.08.2003 to sell the properties comprised in S.F.No.293/1C4 – 68 cents, S.F.No.293/2C – 19 cents, S.F.No.294/19D – 23 cents, S.F.No.303/1B – 6 cents, S.F.No.30314B – 53 cents, S.F.No.303/20A – 30 cents and S.F.No.318/6A – 31 cents. Based on that st agreement, a suit was filed by the 1 respondent which was numbered as O.S.No.102 of 2004. The said suit was decreed on 14.07.2006 after contest. No appeal was preferred by the defendants as against that decree and judgement. Thereafter, an Execution Petition was filed to enforce the decree. Pending such execution petition, earlier, the revision petitioner moved the executing court with an execution application under Section 151 of CPC seeking to exclude the nd properties covered under the settlement deed executed by her husband, the 2 respondent herein, which was numbered as E.A.No.35 of 2008.

(iii) According to the revision petitioner, as the earlier application in E.A.No.35 of 2008 was filed inadvertently under Section 151 of CPC , she had to file another application under Section 47 of CPC for proper adjudication which was subsequently numbered as E.A.No.2 of 2012. The earlier application was supposed to have been dismissed, but was not done and the same was pending. However, on 08.09.2006, the application in E.A.No.35 of 2008 as well as the application in E.A.No.2 of 2012 were dismissed for the default of the petitioner. Thereafter, it is seen from the records that the revision petitioner filed an application on 22.09.2016 to restore the application in E.A.No.35 of 2008 and by allowing that application, E.A.No.35 of 2008 came to be restored to its file and on transfer, it was numbered as E.A.No.143 of 2018.

(iv) The execution application in E.A.No.143 of 2018 was filed alleging nd that when the 2 respondent had already executed a settlement deed executed on 04.06.2003 granting life interest to the petitioner and vested remainder to her minor son, he ought not have entered into an agreement to sell the properties covered under the settlement deed. Therefore, she sought to exclude the properties covered under the settlement deed. The said application was dismissed by the executing court. Challenging the order of the executing court, the present revision petition.

3. The only contention of the revision petitioner before this court is that the lands comprised in S.No.293/1C4 - 27.5 cents and S.No.293/2C - 7.