VARGHESE Vs. IYPE KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that certain sale deeds caused to be executed by him are null and void and for recovery of possession of those properties with mesne profits. In this appeal we are concerned with only items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule. In a family partition among the plaintiff and his brothers evidenced by Ext. P3 dated 13-7-1123 these items were obtained by the plaintiff towards his share. On 15-11-1950 a sale deed Ext. D1 was executed for Rs. 3,000/- in respect of item No. 1 to the 1st defendant. On the same day another sale deed Ext. D2 was executed in respect of item No. 2 to defendants 2 to 4 for Rs. 7,000/-. With the amount obtained under these sale deeds on the same day certain properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff and his brothers for Rs. 20,000/-. That sale deed is Ext. P6. According to the plaintiff, he was a minor on the date these sale deeds were caused to be executed by him and therefore Exts. D1 and D2 are void and no title passed to defendants 1 to 4. Therefore, he seeks to recover possession of these properties with mesne profits.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 4 contended that the plaintiff was a major on the date of these sale deeds and even if he was a minor, with consideration obtained under that sale deeds Ext. P6 properties were purchased and later on plaintiff and others entered into a partition deed on 28-6-1951 evidenced by Ext. D4 and thereafter plaintiff has disposed of those properties. Thus the plaintiff is estopped from contending that the sale deeds Exts. D1 and D2 are not valid. They further contended that if for any reason the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, they are entitled to value of improvements and also the consideration advanced for the sale deeds in question.

(3.) During the course of the suit plaintiff's coming to know that a portion of item 2 had been earlier transferred by gift by the 2nd defendant to his sister's son inlaw, the latter was impleaded as 8th defendant in the year 1963. The 8th defendant adopted the contention of defendants 1 to 4 and also contended that in any event the suit is barred against him so far as it concerns the properties obtained by him from the 2nd defendant under a gift deed, Ext. D6. The Court below found that the plaintiff was a minor on the date of the sale deeds, Exts. D1 and D2. He attained majority only on 15-10-1951 and therefore the two sale deeds, Exts. D1 and D2, are found to be void. The Court below found that the suit is barred by limitation as against the 8th defendant and the property obtained by him by gift from the 2nd defendant. The Court below also found that the plaintiff having accepted the partition deed Ext. D4 and executed a sale deed of the property obtained by him under that, is estopped from impeaching the validity of the sale deeds Exts. D1 and D2. On these findings the suit was dismissed so far as items 1 and 2 are concerned. It is against that that this appeal has been filed.