THEAGARAYA REDDIAR Vs. VEDACHALA GOUNDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 41 of 1967 on the file of the Sub -Court, Chengleputtu is the Appellant. He is the son of one Sriapathy Reddiar and Meerabai Ammal, P.W. 3. He has filed the suit in forma pauperis for setting aside the alienations of the suit A to G Schedule properties made by Sriapathy Reddiar and P.W. 3, the latter acting as his guardian during his minority, is favour of the seven Defendants in this case, for the recovery of possession of those properties, and renditions of accounts regarding the income from the properties from the dates of the various alienations and also for the recovery of future mesne profits. His allegation in the plaint is that he and his father Sriapathy Reddiar owned joint family properties in Thonnadu village, Madurantakam taluk. Sriapathy Reddiar was leading a wayward life and had incurred a number of debts as a result of which there was considerable pressure from the creditors for the discharge of those liabilities which had not been incurred by Sriapathy Reddiar either for any family necessity or for any benefit of the joint family. Sriapathy Reddiar and P.W. 3 the latter acting as the Plaintiff's guardian during his minority, sold the joint family properties of Sriapathy Reddiar and the Plaintiff to one Krishna Reddiar for a sum of Rs. 31,000 under the sale deed of which exhibit A -1 is the registration copy, in order to discharge the various debts incurred by Sriapathy Reddiar. At the time of the execution of that sale deed, it was the intention of all interested parties to save at least some money from the sale proceeds for the benefit of the Plaintiff and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 14,000 was retained in the hands of the purchaser Krishna Reddiar so that from that amount some other properties could be purchased for the benefit of the Plaintiff. Sriapathy Reddiar agreed that the sum of Rs. 14,000 belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff as and by way of family arrangement at the time of the said sale and the Plaintiff became entitled to that sum lying in the hands of the purchaser Krishna Reddiar. Subsequently, under the sale deed exhibit A -3, dated 1st September, 1948, properties were purchased in Mathur village, Madurantakam taluk in the name of the Plaintiff, then a miner represented by the mother P.W. 3 as guardian. The said sale was in respect of the suit A to G Schedule properties for a consideration of Rs. 13,000 which was received by the vendors Kothandarama Reddiar and another from Krishna Reddiar out of the said sum of Rs. 14,000 obtained by him. The properties purchased by that sale deed belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff, and his father Sriapathy Reddiar did not have any interest is all those properties. Since the date of that sale, P.W. 3 was in possession and enjoyment of those properties on behalf of the Plaintiff.

(2.) Sriapathy Reddiar, who was leading a wayward life and was addicted to many vices found that, he should have funds for the extravagant and illegal habits and, therefore, he appeared to have forced the Plaintiff s mother P.W. 3 to sell all the A to G Schedule properties to the Defendants between the years 1960 and 1967 in order that he could receive the consideration for those sales for being utilised for his illegal requirements. The properties purchased under the original of exhibit A -3 yielded large income for the maintenance and other expenses of the Plaintiff and there was no need to sell those properties. The Defendants had taken advantage of the need of Sriapathy Reddiar and purchased those properties for low sums. The recitals in the various sale deeds are not true and have been made in the sale deed presumably to give a colour of bona fides to the transaction of sale. The Plaintiff finds in some of the sale deeds that there is a recital to the effect that the properties have been sold for purchasing other properties in Nelvoy village. The sale of Mathur properties purchased under exhibit A -3 to the Defendants for the alleged purpose of purchased properties in Nelvoy village is not valid as the Mathur village properties are more valuable than the Nelvoy properties purchased under the Original of exhibit B -23, The consideration for the sales of the suit A to G Schedule properties is much larger than the alleged consideration of Rs. 7,000 for the purchase of the properties in Nelvoy village. The Plaintiff has never been in possession and enjoyment of Nelvoy properties and has disclaimed all interest in those properties. The sale of A to G Schedule properties is not binding on the Plaintiff and he called upon the Defendants to deliver possession of the properties. Some of the Defendants have sent reply with false allegations contending that the suit properties were the joint family properties of the Plaintiff and his father Sriapathy Reddiar and that the sales are binding on the Plaintiff. Even, if the properties are joint family properties, the alienations are not binding on the Plaintiff as they had not been made by the manager of the joint family for any necessity or for the benefit of the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff prayed in those circumstances for setting aside the various alienations made in favour of the Defendants and for other reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The Plaintiff claimed to have been born on 15th July, 1945 and has alleged that the suit had been filed within three years from the date of his attainment of majority.