CHANDRAMATHY Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 105/1984 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala, is the appellant in this appeal. Suit was instituted for setting aside Ext.A2 sale deed (the original being Ext.B2), in so far as it purports to convey the plaintiff's half share in the plaint schedule property in favour of the third defendant and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one half share in the property and for mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the Suit declaring that Ext.A2 sale deed was not valid or binding on the plaintiff's half share in the property. It was found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover half share in the plaint schedule property and the Court below passed the decree in that regard further declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits for a period of three years. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Suit. Hence the Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaint schedule property was outstanding on lease (Kanapattom) with one Madhavan. Plaint schedule property belonged to one Mattathil Damodaran Raghavan Kartha. The Kanapattom right was assigned in favour of the plaintiff's mother, the first defendant, and one Kuncheru. While so, the jenmam right was purchased by the plaintiff and her mother, the first defendant, as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 8.3.1966. The leasehold interest that was available with Kuncheru continued even thereafter. It seems that the original owner of the property, Raghavan Kartha had earlier filed an application, as the owner of the property for resumption of the same, under Section 17 of the Land Reforms Act. But the said application was withdrawn by him before the execution of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 8.3.1966. According to the plaintiff, she and her mother continued in possession of the property.

(3.) By Ext.B2 sale deed dated 16.3.1977, plaintiff's mother on her behalf and acting as the guardian of the plaintiff, who admittedly was a minor as on 16.3.1977, purported to assign the plaint schedule property in favour of the third defendant, Thankappan. Subsequently, the plaintiff attained majority. The instant suit O.S. No. 105/1984 was, as stated above, instituted for setting aside Ext.B2 document in so far as it purported to convey the plaintiff's right over the plaint schedule property and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one half share of the property. It was inter alia contended that Ext.B2 document is abinitio void in so far as the plaintiff's share is concerned for two reasons. Firstly, the minor was not represented by her natural guardian, the father, the second defendant. Secondly, the sanction of the Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, was not obtained. It was further contended that the document was not supported by consideration.