IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-04-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 7728 OF 2023,CMP NO. 1769 OF 2024

1. Kesava Gounder S/o. Dhanakotti Gounder, Kattu Edaiyar Village and Post, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Kuppa Gounder S/o.Narayana Gounder, Kattu Edaiyar Village and Post, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District Respondent(s)

SA No. 256 of 2023 PRAYER To set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 27.04.2018 made in AS.No. 104/2017 passed by the Ld Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 16.12.2015 made in OS.No. 225/2006 passed by the Ld 1st Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet SA No. 256 of 2023 For Appellant(s): T.Gandhi For Respondent(s): C.K.C. Dhruva For Sole Respondent

JUDGEMENT

This Second appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 27.04.2018 made in AS.No. 104/2017 passed by the Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet, reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 16.12.2015 made in OS.No. 225/2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Munsif, Ulundupet

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, who filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare him as the absolute owner of ''A'' schedule property with consequential relief that the sale made by him would not bind the minor defendant and he prayed to give direction to the first defendant in respect of alternative relief to allot land in ''B'' schedule property. The first defendant is his father and the second defendant is his sons.

3. Originally suit property belongs to the first Defendant's father Narayana Gounder, who executed the settlement deed in respect of A schedule property in favour of respondents 2 & 3/defendants 2 & 3, who were minors at that time. First defendant/Father of the second and third defendant was appointed as guardian in respect of A schedule property in which the first defendant's father has no independent right. The plaintiff owned adjacent land nearer to A schedule property. So, there was a proposal to purchase the same. Accordingly, on 06.07.1992, the first defendant sold entire A schedule property to the plaintiff with a term of that if any enbumbrance arise in respect of A schedule property, the plaintiff can keep the B schedule property, which absolutely belongs to the first defendant. After purchasing the A Schedule property, the plaintiff possessed and enjoyed the same. But the first defendant' instigated the minor son/third defendant to file a suit challenging the purchase made by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. The first defendant contested the suit stating that as per the recitals of the sale deed made by him in favour of the plaintiff that if at any occasions sale in respect of minor's share declared as invalid, he agreed to give security for the sale consideration of Rs.18,000/- paid by the plaintiff. Third defendant contended that as per the settlement deed executed by his Grandfather ''A'' schedule property absolutely belongs to the 2 and 3 defendants in which he is having half share i.e., 24 cents. But, the first defendant/Father has no right and title. Therefore, the alleged sale made in favour of the plaintiff by the first defendant would not bind him and he filed the counter objection. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, the Trial Court held that as per the settlement deed/Ex.B1 Narayana Gounder executed said document in favour of 2^nd and 3^rd defendants, who were minors in the year 1990 hence he appointed first defendant as guardian. But the first defendant sold the property which is covered under settlement deed/Ex.B1 which shown as ''A'' schedule property herein in favour of the plaintiff and as such it would not bind the second and third defendant. Accordingly, it was declared that purchase made by the plaintiff is not valid in respect of A schedule property but relief granted in respect of 'B' schedule p