PARAMBESWARAN PILLAY Vs. BHAVANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The suit is for cancellation of Ext. Al sale deed dated 20-6-1966. Ext. A1 was executed by the 4th defendant to defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiff is the daughter of the 4th defendant. Cancellation is sought on the ground that Ext. A1 is not supported by consideration and necessity and also on the ground that mother was not competent to alienate the property.

(2.) Plaintiff obtained the property under Ext. B1 partition dated 18-2-1957. Plaintiff was a minor at the time of partition. Plaintiff came to know of Ext. A1 in 1976. Defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, that plaintiff's mother was competent to execute the sale deed and that in fact the sale deed was executed on account of minor's necessity and also for proper consideration. It is also stated that with the amount of Ext. A1 sale consideration another property was purchased as per Ext. B2 in the name of the plaintiff.

(3.) The Trial Court decreed the suit stating that mother of the plaintiff, the de facto guardian, was incompetent to alienate the property. This has been confirmed by the Sub Judge.