THIRUKKUMARAN Vs. VARADARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.(These appeals are filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. praying for the relief as stated therein.)Common Judgment: These appeals arose out of the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.161 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Virudhachalam.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:Plaint "A, B, and C" schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff. THE plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, his father/second defendant and his deceased brother. THE said Mullainathan, who was the son of second defendant through his first wife Soundarammal. THE first defendant is the second wife of the second defendant. THE plaintiff is the son of the second wife through the first defendant. THE second defendant, his son Mullainathan through his first wife Soundarammal and the plaintiff had partitioned the family properties under a registered partition deed dated 9.10.1971. "A"schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff under the above said partition deed "B" schedule property was allotted to the second defendant till her life time under the above said partition deed "A" schedule property was also allotted to Mullainathan under the partition deed dated 9.10.1971 "B"schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff under the above said partition deed and "C" schedule property under the partition deed was left to be enjoyed in common. At the time of partition, the plaintiff was a minor. THE first defendant was appointed as a guardian of the minor plaintiff under the partition deed. THE first defendant and the second defendant have no right to alienate or encumber the properties allotted to the minor plaintiff under the said partition deed. THE plaintiff's brother Mullainathan died intestate in the year 1972. THE legal representatives of Mullainathan viz., Pattathal (Wife) and Umapathy (Daughter) had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the properties allotted to Mullainathan to the above said partition deed dated 9.10.1971 on 27.8.1973. THE properties comprised in the above said settlement deed executed by Pattathal and her daughter Umapathy is plaint "B" Schedule property, even during the above said settlement, the plaintiff was a minor. Even under the above said settlement deed, the first defendant was shown as a guardian of the minor plaintiff. THE plaint "C"schedule property was allotted to the second defendant under the partition deed dated 9.10.1971. THE second defendant was given right to enjoy the "C" schedule property till her life time. After the death of the second defendant, as per the terms of the partition deed dated 9.10.1971, "C" schedule property shall devolve on the plaintiff and his brother Mullainathan. THE plaintiff was born on 5.6.1967. Even at the time of partition dated 9.10.1971, and also during the period of settlement dated 27.8.1973, the plaintiff was a minor. While, the plaintiff was a minor, he left the house and was able to secure a job at Chandigarh. THE defendants 1 and 2 with a aim to deceive the plaintiff, had executed sale deeds in respect of "A B C" schedule properties in favour of defendants 3 to 9. THE plaintiff is not a beneficiary under those sale deeds. THE defendants 3 to 9 knowing that "A B C" schedule properties belonged to the minor plaintiff, deliberately purchased the properties only to defeat the interest of the minor and the above said sale deeds will not bind the plaintiff. THE third defendant has purchased Item No. III in "A" schedule property , Item NO.VI in "B" Schedule property and "C" schedule property on 10.10.1973 from the first and second defendants for Rs.6,000/- the fourth defendant had purchased Item Nos 2 to 5 in "B" schedule property on 1.7.1974 for Rs.2,750/- Subsequently, the fourth defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the ninth defendant on 8.10.1982 for Rs.8,300/- So the sale deeds obtained by the fourth defendant and ninth defendant are void documents. THE fifth defendant had purchased Item No.I in "A" schedule property on 11.6.1970 for Rs.7,900/- Item NO.I in "B" schedule property on 2.7.1980 for Rs.10,000/- and sixth to eighth defendants have purchased Item No.II in "A" schedule property on 6.5.1982 for Rs.9,000/- from first and second defendants. Those sale deeds will not bind the plaintiff. THEre was no consideration passed under the above said sale deeds. THE above said sale deeds were executed by the first defendant and the second defendants showing that the plaintiff was a minor. THE plaintiff came to know about the sale deeds just six months prior to the filing of the suit. On 26.9.1987, the plaintiff demanded defendants 3 to 9 to hand over the possession of the properties but they refused to do so. THE suit is not barred by limitation, since the plaintiff has filed the suit within three years from the date of attaining majority. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 10.10.1973, 11.6.1979, 2.7.1980, 6.5.1982.8. 10. 1982 in favour of the defendants 3 to 9 executed by the defendants 1and 2 are all void documents and also for recovery of possession of the plaint "A, B" schedule properties from defendants 3,5 to 9 and also for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to "C" schedule property after the life time of the second defendant and also for mesne profits.

(3.) THE ninth defendant in his written statement has contended that the date of birth of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is not admitted by this defendant. THE suit is barred by limitation. THE plaintiff has filed the suit within three years from the date of attaining majority. This defendant is a bonafide purchaser for the value from the fourth defendant, who sold Item Nos II to V of "B" schedule property under a sale deed dated 1.7.1974 for proper and valuable consideration. THE sale deed was executed to discharge family debts which will bind the plaintiff. After enjoying for eight years, the fourth defendant sold the said property on 8.10.1982 to the ninth defendant for Rs.8,300/- This defendant has prescribed title to the said property by way of adverse possession. Pending suit, the fourth defendant died, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to implead the legal representatives of the fourth defendant, but he has given up the claim against the fourth defendant. THE plaintiff has failed to set aside the alienation within three years from the date of attaining majority. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.