M KANDASAMY Vs. A RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions of law were raised in S.A.Nos.1206 and 1653 of 1993:- S.A.No.1206 of 1991 "1. Whether both the Courts below failed to note that the suit as far as the alienees is concerned is barred by limitation?

(2.) WHETHER both the Courts below erred in granting the relief contemplated under Sec.21(1) proviso of Limitation Act, 1963 and it is against law as the plaintiffs themselves did not pray for such relief?

(3.) THE learned counsel also submitted that these sale deeds which are attacked are documents where minor is an eo-nominee party. So, it is essential that he should seek for cancellation of the document and pay appropriate Court fees and for this purpose, he relied on 2001 (3) MLJ.15, Balu alias Balakrishnan V. Minor B. Sasikumar and others. THE learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the plaintiff had become a major on 04.05.1976, just four days prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the suit which is deemed to have been filed against the present appellants in 1986 is hopelessly barred by time. THE learned counsel further submitted that when the father as a Kartha has executed the documents, it is not open to the sons to attack it.