T R APPASAMI AYYANGAR Vs. NARAYANASWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a suit filed by plaintiff No. 1 Yamuna Raja Ammani for a declaration that the sale deed executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 on 13 August, 1913, whereby she conveyed the lands mentioned in the plaint to defendant No. 1 for 6. consideration of Rs. 16,250 obtained from her when she was a minor and that consequently the deed is invalid and confers no rights on defendants Nos. 1 to 3, for possession of the properties, for division of the properties if necessary and in the alternative if the Court should he ld that the plaintiff is estopped from impeaching the sale-deed, for payment to her of Rs. 16,250, the consideration and interest thereon, and for costs and other reliefs.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal are shortly these. The plaintiff is related to the royal family of Tanjore and Ramakumara Sahiba, who was the Dowager Rani of Tanjore and owned certain immoveable properties, made a deed of settlement whereby she gave properties to the plaintiff and to other donees by a deed dated 10bh August, 1907, which has been filed in the suit as Ex. A. Under that deed the plaintiff was entitled to a third share, another third belonged to her elder sister Rajanna Armani and the remaining third to one Swaminatharao who was the husband of another sister of hers. Plaintiff No. 1 was married to one Sanguram Jathav who died IQ 1913. According to her she was a minor about 15 years of age at the time when this sale-deed was executed by her. She says that this sale-deed is not binding on her and that it was executed by her without receiving any consideration, that Dasarathi Sahib, her husband's brother and defendant No. 1 in collusion got her to execute the sale-deed. She denies she entered into any agreement to sell the property, received any advance or got the consideration under the sale-deed. Defendant No. 1 is the purchaser, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, are undivided sons of defendant No. 1, defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the legal representatives of Dasarathi Sahib who died before the suit was instituted to far as the claim against them is concerned she gave up the claim on the ground that she has compromised the matter with them. As regards the alternative claim for, getting back Rs. 16,250, that was also given up in the course of the trial. The case for the contesting defendant No. 1 is that she was a major at the time of the sale, being about 19 years old, that he wanted to buy all the three shares and did not want to take only one or two shares, that Rajanna Ammani, the elder sister of the plaintiff, Swaminatha Rao, the husband of her other sister, agreed to sell their thud shares, that Dasarathi and her other relations brought about the sale of plaintiff third share, that it was represented that Yamuna also would sell the property and that she was a major, that he arranged with the vendors and also spoke to her husband, the transaction was put through with the knowledge of these people, that he was never informed that she was a minor, that an advance of Rs. 2,500 was paid under Exs. 4 and 5 before the sale-deed was executed, the balance of Rs. 13,0C0 odd which was due to the plaintiff was paid before the Sub- Register that he got possession of this land and has been in possession ever since the sale. The Subordinate Judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and the documents filed by her to show that she was a minor at the date of the transaction. He found that she was born on 12 November, 1888, and that the sale and the agreements to sell are therefore not binding He, he wever, disbelieved her case as to the agreements, Exs. 4 and 5, and the advance paid under those agreements as also her case that the balance was not paid to her at the time of registration. In this view she received the money and she made the representation made before the Registrar that she was 20 years old and the defendant in ignorance of her minority actually paid the whole consideration. He was also of opinion that the price was fair, and as the transaction was not in other ways open to question he held that the plaintiff was bound to repay Rs. 16,250 before she could get possession of the properties on the ground that the sale-deed was void. He passed a decree directing that on payment of this sum possession should be handed over to the plaintiff.

(3.) Although the suit was originally filed by Yamuna Bai as sole plaintiff, when the proceedings were pending in the lower Court, she assigned her rights to plaintiff No. 2 by a deed dated 2nd August, 1923, and plaintiff No. 2 wanted to come on record as the assignee pendentelite. This application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was merely traffic in litigation and it was not a bona fide transaction. But on appeal in C.M.A. No. 258 of 1923 the High Court; held that he should be brought on record as plaintiff No. 2 as the deed of assignment was there and plaintiff No. 1 did not object. Plaintiff No. 2, therefore, came in after the order of the High Court on 21 November, 1923. Against the decree of the Subordinate Judge defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed the Appeal No. 184 in so far as it held that plaintiff was a minor and that the sale-deed was a void and possession was decreed. As against the portion of the decree which directed the plaintiff to pay into Court Rs. 16,250 plaintiff No. 2 has filed Appeal No. 1 to 3 of 1925. Both these appeals have been tried together.