DODDA THIMMA NAIKA Vs. LAKSHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Dist. in R.A. No. 135 of 1966 on his file dismissing the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1966 passed by the Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No.420 of 1962 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for setting aside the alienation done by his guardian during his minority.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that when he was a minor, the suit property was alienated under Ex. D-l to defendants 2 to 5 on 6-11-1952 stating that there was pressure and it was necessitated by legal necessity. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was a property got by him under a will Ex. P 1 dated 12-5-1945 from his maternal grand-father and that his mother had no right to sell that property. He submitted that there was absolutely no legal necessity to sell the property and defendants 2 to 7 defrauded his parents in getting the sale deed executed. So, he prayed for setting aside the sale and possession of the property. Defendants resisted the suit. According to them, the sale was for legal necessity, They also stated that the suit was barred by Art. 44 of the Limitation Act. After hearing the learned counsel and on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the sale was for legal necessity and that the suit was barred by time under Art. 44 of the Limitation, Act and thus, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge and as stated above, the learned Civil Judge by his judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal before this Court.

(3.) The learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the suit sale was effected by showing the mother of the plaintiff as guardian during his minority ; that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to sue within three years on attaining majority to set aside the sale and that it did not fall within the scope of Art. 44 of the Limitation Act, as it then existed. He further contended that the sale was void as it was not brought about by the natural guardian the father. He also contended that the sale was effected as if the property belonged to defendants 6 and 7 as also the minor and his brother in addition to Chinnamma, the grand-mother of the plaintiff. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for respondents urged strenuously to accept the reasoning and the final decree of the courts below.