MINU Vs. VINODHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

(2.) This appeal arises out of the first appellate judgment in A.S.No.260 of 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Irinjalakuda. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.504 of 2008 before the Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. The suit is one for a declaration that Ext.A2 document executed by the father of the plaintiff during her minority is null and void and it had not come into effect. Consequentially a prayer for recovery of possession of property is also sought for. Trial court dismissed the suit finding that in the light of a full bench decision in Ramadas Menon v. Sreedevi (2004 (1) KLT 323) the suit is not maintainable since the prayer in the suit is only to declare Ext.A2 as a void document and there is no prayer to set it aside. This finding was confirmed by the lower appellate court. It is also found that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence the plaintiff is in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below committed a grave error in dismissing the suit. According to him, Ext.A2 document does not bind the plaintiff as it was executed by her father for no legal necessity. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent supported the findings of the courts below on the ground that even if the plaintiff's case is admitted, Ext.A2 can only be a voidable document and there is no prayer in the plaint to set it aside. In the absence of such a prayer, no relief could be granted. I am in full agreement with the finding of the courts below that the suit is not maintainable and the relief claimed in the suit could not be legally granted. I find no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.