DOMINIC IRUDAYARAJ Vs. PRAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who lost in the lower Court is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was purchased in his fa"vour under a sale deed dated 07.02.1969 and his paternal uncle Arockiasamisithan, repre'sented him as guardian in that sale deed and the plaintiff was in possession of the same and without his knowledge and without any legal necessity the property was sold on 23.01.1980 by Arockiasamisithan and his wife Arockia "mary acting as guardian of the plaintiff to one Josephine Ammal and thereafter, in the year 1982, the defendant purchased the property from Josephine Ammal. THE plaintiff was born on 24.04.1968 and on the date of sale in favour of Josephine Ammal, he was a minor and the sale was not made after getting neces'sary permission from the competent Court and therefore, the sale in favour of Josephine Ammal is void ab initio and neither Josephine Ammal nor the defendant derived any title to the property and therefore, after attaining ma"jority on 24.04.1987 the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession.

(3.) DURING the trial on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and on the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined himself as D.W.1 and the plaintiff marked 8 documents and on the side of the defendants 15 documents were marked.