LAWS(MAD)-2001-1-31

MINOR R MURALIRAJ Vs. R RAMARAJ

Decided On January 03, 2001
MINOR R.MURALIRAJ Appellant
V/S
R.RAMARAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-1988 rendered in O. S. No. 195 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore thereby dismissing the suit with costs which has been filed on the part of the appellant herein for declaration that the transfer of 1/4 share of the petitioner in the movable property under sale deed dated 9-2-1972 is void and to set aside the transfer in support of the minor's 1/4 share in the suit property and for costs.

(2.) Adverting to the facts as revealed in the plaint, the minor plaintiff represented by next friend and mother would submit that he is the son of the first defendant and the suit properties were acquired by the first defendants grandfather Rangaswamy Gounder in a Court auction sale held on 10-12-1928; that the sale was confirmed on 14-1-1929 and possession was obtained on 4-3-1929; that the properties were enjoined in common by the joint family, comprising of Rangaswamy Gounder, his two sons Rangampa and Arumugam, the said Rangappa is the father of the first defendant; that Rangasamy Gounder died intestate in 1942; and the suit properties were enjoyed in common by Rangappa and Arumugham; that the first defendant's father Rangappa also died in 1952; that the minor plaintiff was born on 22-6-1971; that Rangappa's undivided half share devolved on his only son the first defendant; and that the minor plaintiff acquired the right by birth and is entitled to the undivided 1/4 share in the suit properties.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant could transfer the share of the minor plaintiff only by obtaining the leave of the Court; that the second defendant is the cultivating tenant of the land for a long time; that the first defendant disposed of the entire half share without the permission of the Court by sale deed dated 9-2-1972 and hence issued, the registered notice dated 12-4-1983 with no reply from the other side; that the second defendant who purchased the same is also attempting to dispose of the entire half share that he acquired and hence, the suit for the relief extracted supra.