SUBBAKKAL Vs. SUBBA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's suit was to recover possession of certain property after a declaration that the sale deed dated 25-6-1941 (it must be the sale deed dated 25-6-1941) executed by her grandmother Karuppayee as her guardian was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. She has failed in both the courts below. She appeals.

(2.) THE property originally belonged to the plaintiff's paternal grandfather. It appears that the father of the plaintiff had himself executed a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 75 on 24-8-1936. After her father's death, the plaintiff, who had also lost her mother, came under the guardianship of her grandmother Karupayee. Karupayee is said to have been looking after her and maintaining her. Karupayee sold the property for a sum of Rs. 240 under the impugned sale deed. Out of the sale price, a sum of Rs. 100 went towards the discharge of the earlier mortgage executed by the plaintiff's father. A sum of Rs. 40 was taken in cash by Karupayee for the maintenance expenses of the plaintiff. With regard to the balance of consideration, the purchaser executed a mortgage on the property. Upon the contentions of the parties the courts below had to consider whether Karupayee had the power to sell the property, whether there was necessity for the sale or any benefit tot he minor's estate and whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for consideration. Both the courts have concurrently found all these questions against the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-appellant does not dispute the position that in so far as Karupayee's authority to sell the property is concerned, there has been a concurrent finding of fact by the courts below that Karupayee was in the circumstances of the case the de facto guardian of the minor plaintiff. That question no longer survives. It is however contended that though legal necessity has been established in so far as the sum of Rs. 140 is concerned, there was no necessity at all for alienating the property to the extent of the balance. It is stated to be a case of only a partial necessity. It is also urged that the vendee made no enquiries whatsoever and his claim to be the bona fide transferee could not, therefore, be sustained.