EACHAN NEELAKANTAN Vs. KUMARASAMI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal which is filed against the judgment of Kailasam J. under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, raises a question of limitation. The appellants with their elder brother constituted a Hindu Joint family. They instituted a suit (which has given rise to this appeal for setting aside a sale of_ a joint family property effected by the latter in the year 1942 (28-6-1118 M. E.) in favour of the respondent and for recovery of possession of that property. At the time of the sale, the appellants were minors. Their mother, as their natural guardian joined her eldest son and executed the document.

(2.) ON 21-1-1953, admittedly more than three years after' the appellants attained the age of majority, but within 12 years from the date of the alienation, the present' suit was instituted. The alienee pleaded inter alia, that the suit must be held to. be barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Both the courts below without much discussion overruled the plea of limitation. They concurrently found that the sale was supported by consideration only in part and they passed a conditional decree for possession in favour of the appellants and against the respondent on payment by the former of a sum of 1222 fanams-the actual consideration paid for the purchase by the respondent. This decree has been set aside on second appeal by Kailasam J. on the ground that the appellants being eo nomine parties to and represented in the transaction by their mother. Article 44 of the Limitation Act would apply and that the claim for recovery of possession would be barred.

(3.) THE only question for consideration in this appeal is that whether in a sale of joint family property by the manager, a minor member of the family is represented eo nomine in the transaction by his guardian, it would be obligatory upon him to have it set aside before he can claim recovery of possession of the property on the ground that the alienation was not justified.