PALLELA KONNARAO ALIAS NALLAMARI Vs. KARRI SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The twice defeated plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. The suit was instituted by him for a declaration that the sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 9-4-1962 executed by his mother, the second defendant to the suit, as his guardian, conveying items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the 1st defendant was void and not binding on him.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the above Second Appeal and not in controversy, lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated : Item 1 of the plaint schedule properties was gifted to the plaintiff by his paternaf grandmother under a registered deed of settlement Ex. A. 1 Dt. 12-7-60. The plaintiff was a minor at the time when the deed of settlement was executed. In fact in the deed of settlement, he was represented by his mother as his guardian. Items 2 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties are the properties of the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and his undivided father Items 1 to 4 were conveyed in favour, of the 1st defendant under Ex, B. 1. a. registered deed of sale dated 9-4-62 The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the alienation. The deed of sale Dt. 9-4-1962 was executed both by the father and the mother of the plaintiff Both the courts below found that the alienation covered by Ex. B. 1 was voidable and that the suit not had been instituted within three years from the date of attainment of majority by the plaintiff, was barred by time. In the result the suit was dismissed by the trial court. The 1st appeal suit preferred by the plaintiff also shared the same fate.

(3.) Sri Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the unsuccessful plaintiff, submits that the alienation of the plaintiff's property, when he was a minor, by his mother, the defacto guardian, was void, that article 60 of the new Limitation Act corresponding to Article 44 of the repealed limitation Act would not govern such an alienation and that the plaintiff was entitled to ignore the alienation and seek recovery of possession of the alienated properties within 12 years 1rom the date of alienation as provided by Art. 65 of the new LIMITATION ACT, 1963.