MEETHIYAN SIDHIQU Vs. MUHAMMED KUNJU PAREETH KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard counsel on both sides. The facts are not in dispute.

(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court passed on September 9,1986 in Second Appeal No. 296/82. Admittedly, the appellant is a purchaser of the property from the 1st respondent who was a minor at that time and the property was sold through his mother as guardian. The question raised in this case is, whether the sale is valid and whether the appellant has perfected his title. Admittedly, the sale was effected in 1949. The trial Court and the appellate Court upheld the right of the respondent but the High Court reversed the same and held that since the sale by the mother as a guardian was void in law, the appellant could not get valid title. Parties are co-owners of the properties. One co-owner cannot claim prescriptive right against another co-owner and in view of the fact that the plea was not raised that he asserted adverse title, disclaiming the right under the sale deed and that the respondent had acquiesced to it, the plea of adverse possession was not sustainable in law. The High Court decreed the suit of the respondent. Thus this appeal by special leave.