O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tindivanam, in I.A.No.276 of 2014 in O.S.No.42 of 2013, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 herein in O.S.No.42 of 2013, for declaration in respect of the suit property as well as the recovery of possession and for means profit. The case of the respondents 1 & 2 is that originally on 27.07.1966, the suit property was purchased by their mother on her behalf as well as the respondents 1 & 2, when they were minors. Thereafter their mother maintained the property. She became judgment debtor in the suit filed for recovery of money in O.S.No.788 of 1972, in which the suit property brought to auction.

3. In the auction sale, the father of the respondents 3 to 6 viz., Subramaniya Achari purchased the suit property in the year 1974. Thereafter the said Subramaniya Achari sold out the suit property in favour of the petitioner herein in the year 1994, vide registered sale deed dated 20.07.1994. In the year 2013, the respondents 1 & 2 filed suit for declaration of title in their favour and recovery of possession and also for mesne profit. Therefore the petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.276 of 2013 to reject the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2013, on the ground that even according to the respondents 1 & 2, at the time of filing the suit, they were aged about 53 years and 51 years respectively. They might have attained majority in the years 1978 and 1980 respectively and the limitation for filing the suit is up to 1981 and 1983 respectively. However, the trial Court dismissed the above said petition as against which, the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds to reject the plaint as follows :- The first ground is that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the second one is that the suit itself is not maintainable, without the prayer of declaration declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the said Subramaniya Achari and the petitioner herein as null and void. The respondents 1 & 2 were obtained majority in the year 1978 and 1980 respectively. As per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, the limitation is three years from the date of attainment of majority, if the property purchased in the name of the minor.

5. In the case on hand, their mother purchased the suit property in the year 1966 and thereafter, it was subjected to the Court auction in the year 1974, in pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.788 of 1972. In the Court auction, the father of the respondents 3 to 6 purchased the suit property in the year 1974. In turn, he sold out the suit property in the year 1994 to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the limitation starts from their attainment of majority viz., 1981 and 1983 respectively. Whereas the said suit is filed in the year 2013. It relevant to extract the Article 60 of the Limitation Act as follows :-

60. To set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward—

(a) by the ward Three years. When the ward who has attained attains majority.

majority;

(b) by the ward's legal representative—

(i) when the ward Three years. When the ward dies within three attains majority.

years from the date of attaining majority.

(ii) when the ward Three years. When the ward dies.

dies before attaining majority.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment reported in (2019) 20 SCC 633 in the case of Murugan and ors Vs. Kesava Gounder (died) through Lrs and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-

"9. Article 60(b)(ii) refers to a suit when a ward dies before attaining majority. The present is a case where Palanivel died on 11.02.1986 before attaining majority, his date of