A de facto guardian cannot validly transfer a minor's property, rendering such transactions void ab initio, and a co-owner's long silence may indicate knowledge of exclusion, barring claims under limitation laws.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in AS No.52 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil, dated 27/01/2011 reversing the judgment and decree in OS No.216 of 2008 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, dated 24/03/2010.

2.The plaint averments:-

(i)The suit property originally belonged to the grand-father of the plaintiff by name Chinnakaruppan and his brother namely Periyakaruppan through their father namely Muthuveeran. Muthuveeran died leaving behind the legal-heirs. They inherited the property and in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff's grandfather Chinnakaruppan died leaving behind the plaintiff's father Karuppan as his legal-heir. So, the plaintiff's father Karuppan and the defendant's father Periyakaruppan were in common enjoyment. The plaintiff's father died, when the plaintiff was aged about 10 years. After his death, the property was in enjoyment of the defendant's father on behalf of the plaintiff also.

(ii)Since the plaintiff was not taken care by the defendant's father, she was under the care and custody of Madathiammal. The defendant's father also died. Now the properties are in possession and enjoyment of the defendant. The plaintiff being the lawful legal-heir of Chinnakaruppan, she is entitled for half share. The plaintiff was demanding partition right from May 2005. But the defendant was evading. He proclaimed that the entire property belongs to him. Later, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the revenue records were transferred and standing in the name of the defendant. But the properties are deemed to be in joint possession of the plaintiff.

(iii)In the reply notice sent by the defendant, it has been stated that the defendant purchased the plaintiff's half share from her guardian. The guardian has no right to execute the sale deed on behalf of the plaintiff or at the stage of the minor. The sale deed is not binding upon her. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share, costs.

3.The statement:-It is admitted that the suit property originally belongs to Muthuveeran and died leaving behind Periyakarupan and Chinnakaruppan. The plaintiff's mother namely Madathiammal married some other person even during the life time of the plaintiff's father. After the death of his father, the plaintiff was taken care by her paternal grand-mother called 'Perumalammal' and living under her custody in Achampatti village. She was the legal guardian. Perumalammal on behalf of the plaintiff sold the property, on 19/06/1971 for a sum of Rs.2,500/-. Similarly, Chinnakaruppan's another daughter by name Karuppayeeammal also received Rs.2,000/-, on 21/07/1997 and released his shares in the sale deed, dated 19/06/1997. Chinna