NATARAJAN AND ANR. Vs. KARUMANA GOUNDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit Was filed in forma pauperis for partition after setting aside a sale deed executed on 14th June, 1943, by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the third defendant in the suit and for past and future mesne profits. The plaint allegations were that the first defendant, the father, was leading an immoral life and that the third defendant, taking advantage of the father's immorality, obtained a sale deed from him. Besides being tainted by illegality and immorality, the sale was alleged to be devoid of consideration. It was also claimed that the properties were sold for Rs. 2,900 while they were in fact worth much more than that amount.

(2.) FIRST defendant is the father of the plaintiffs, and the second defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiffs. They remained ex parte in the suit. The third defendant purchaser contended that the sale was for proper and adequate consideration and that it Was effected for the benefit of the family besides being for the discharge of an antecedent debt. It was urged that the plaintiffs taking advantage of the rise in prices following the Lower Bhavani Project have filed this suit. The principal contention of the third defendant was that the second defendant became the family manager and as he failed to take any steps for setting aside the sale deed, the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) THE plaintiffs appealed. The learned Subordinate Judge of Erode disagreed with the view taken by the lower Court that the sale was for purposes binding upon the coparceners. He held that there was no justifiable necessity and the purpose of the sale being stated in the sale deed to be for the purchase of other properties, in the absence of evidence to show there was need for the sale of the family properties and for the purchase of other properties, it could not be held to be for binding purposes. On the question of limitation, however, the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the trial Court that since the second defendant was proved to have been the manager of the family during the relevant period and since he failed to take any steps to set aside the sale deed, the bar of limitation operated even against his brothers, the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal Was dismissed.