SIVAVADEVELU PILLAY Vs. PONNAMMAL AND GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case prays for a declaration that a sale of the plaintiff s property by his mother as his guardian is not. binding on him, and for possession and mesne profits. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient proof of his age; and the question for decision is whether the period of limitation is twelve years from the date of alienation in 1904, under Article 144, or three years from the date of the plaintiff s majority under Article 44, of the Limitation Act, 1877. We are of opinion that the case falls within the decision of the Privy Council in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram 23 M. 271 : 27 I.A. 69 : 4 C.W.N. 329 which was followed by this Court in Madugula Latchiah v. Palli Mukhalinga 30 M. 393 : 17 M.L.J. 220 : 2 M.L.T. 350 and that Article 41 applies. In view of these decisions, we are unable to follow the cases in Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 and Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramaswamy Nayakan 7 M.L.J. 131. We may point oat that in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram 23 M. 271 : 27 I.A. 69 : 4 C.W.N. 329, the sale by the minor s guardian was held to be void and incapable of passing any title to the purchaser, while the ground of the decision in Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 was that such a sale deed may be treated as non-existent, and the remedy of the minor is to sue for possession and not to set aside the sale.

(2.) The judgment in Unni v. Kunchi Ammal 14 M. 26 was obiter as regards a sale by minor s guardian which is the case specifically provided for by Article 44, and no other authority appears to have been considered in the case reported in Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramaswamy Nayakan 7 M.L.J. 131.

(3.) The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. In S.A. No. 1424 of 1910.