DHANASEKARAN Vs. MANORANJITHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL HADI, J.:- This appeal has been posted before us on being referred to by Bellie, J., since the view he is taking on the question involved in the appeal is in conflict with the view taken by Ratnam, J., in his decision reported in Pattayi Padayachi v. Subbaraya Padayachi, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 296.

(2.) This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 296 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore praying for setting aside the sale under Ex. B.4 dated 2-8-1961, effected by his mother when he was a minor, in so far is his 3/4th share therein is concerned and for partition and separate possession of the said share. The question to be answered is whether the said sale is hit by S. 8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 since admittedly the plaintiff's mother did not obtain the previous permission from the Court as contemplated in the said Section, and consequently whether the plaintiff could avoid the said sale with reference to his above said 3/4th share. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan is that S. 8 operates and the plaintiff could avoid the sale. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants 3 to 10 (respondents 2 to 9 herein) who are the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant, the vendee under the above said Sale deed Mr. V. R. Gopalan, is that the said property being the joint family property, the said Section is not attracted that consequently the above said permission from the Court is not called for and that the said sale having been effected for legal necessity of the family, should be upheld as valid as the Court below has done.

(3.) The lst defendant (lst respondent review) is the plaintiff's mother and under the said sale, she sold not only the above said 3/4th share belonging to the plaintiff on his behalf, she also sold her own 1/4th share therein. She remained ex parte both in the Court below and in this Court.