MADHUKAR VISHWANATH Vs. MADHAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference to a larger Bench has been made in this case but, having gone into the facts, we find it to be unnecessary.

(2.) The appellant was born on 22-8-1948 and attained majority on 26 (sic 22) -8-1966. By this time his parents and his only brother had died. His maternal uncle, Baburao Madhorao Puranik became the appellant's de facto guardian and, as such, transferred immovable property belonging to the appellant to Respondents 2 to 6 and one other. On 7-2-1973, the appellant filed a suit praying that Defendants 2 to 7, the transferees, be required to deliver to him possession of the said property and for incidental reliefs. Baburao was the first defendant to the suit. In para 4 of the plaint the appellant set out the total income derived from the said property and pleaded that it was more than sufficient for his maintenance. Accordingly, he submitted in para 5 that there was no legal necessity to transfer any portion of the said property for his maintenance. The alienation thereof, he averred, was not for legal necessity and was not binding on him. In the written statement filed on behalf of the transferees, it was pleaded that there was legal necessity for the alienation and that, therefore, the alienation was valid. It was also submitted that the suit was barred by time.

(3.) The suit was decreed by the trial court and it was held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was the appropriate provision. The first appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the period of limitation for filing of suit began on the date of the alienation. The High Court affirmed the decision of the first appellate court. It held that the suit not having been filed within three years from the date on which the appellant attained majority, it was barred by limitation.