T M KRISHNAMOORTHY PILIAI Vs. MANGALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The second defendant in O.S. No. 320 of 1980 on the file of the court of District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam, who lost before both the courts below, is the appellant in the above second appeal.

(2.) The said suits has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit properties on the claim made by the plaintiff that the sale in favour of the second defendant-appellant under a registered sale deed dated 31.7.1979 marked as Ex. B4 is void and non est in the eye of law and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession, the suit having been presented within twelve years from the date of such alienation. The further case of the plaintiff was that on 22.8.1968, Lakshmi Animal, the mother, sold under Ex. B1 item No. 1 of 'B' schedule properties to her another son, Venkataraman, which alienation was not for the benefit of the plaintiff or her sister and that it is also hit by Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and, consequently, the subsequent sale by the said purchaser in favour of the second defendant also does not have the consequence of conveying lawful title.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 3 were absent and set ex-parte and the 4th defendant submitted to a decree. It is the second defendant, who filed a written statement contending that the settlement deed dated 11.5.1934 is a void document, that the default clause incorporated in the settlement deed is invalid, as also the subsequent partition and if, at all, the alienation in question is questionable only by defendants 3 and 4 and not by the plaintiff and that inasmuch as the alienation by the mother was for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the plaintiff, it was for the necessities of the then minor plaintiff and, consequently, the suit not having been filed as envisaged under Article 60 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act within three years from the date of attaining majority the suit claim is barred and that the provisions of the Hindu Minority and, Guardianship Act has no application to the case on hand.