GOTTUKKULA SURAPA RAJU Vs. GOTTUMKKULA VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the alienation of the plaintiff s mother as guardian of her minor sons with which Second Appeal No. 99 of 1913 is concerned and the alienation by the same individual as guardian of her minor sons under Exhibit II in Second Appeal No. 98 of 1913, we find that the matter is governed by the Full Bench decision in Doraisami v. Nondisami Saluvan 21 Ind. Cas. 410: 25 M.L.J. 405; 14 M.L.T. 401; 38 M. 118, which decided that limitation begins to run from the date of the elder brother attaining majority.

(2.) With regard to the other alienation under Exhibit I effected by the elder brother after attaining majority and by the mother as guardian of the minor plaintiff, I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother has written and I agree with him in thinking that the sale by the manager of the undivided family which has been found to be for a bona fide family purpose was binding on the family and that the mere fact of the plaintiff s mother joining in the deed, though unnecessary, did not detract from the validity of the transaction. No question of limitation arises in the case. Under these circumstances both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

(3.) The sale-deed in question was executed by the brother of the plaintiff, who was then of age and the manager of the joint family, and by plaintiff s mother as his guardian. The Courts below have found that the sale was effected to enable the brother to meet the necessary expenses of the family. The finding is not disputed in second appeal. Therefore, if the brother alone had executed the document, there can be no question that the alienation will be binding on the plaintiff. Mr. Ramesam argues that as the mother has joined in the execution of the deed as guardian of the plaintiff, the sale is a nullity and that plaintiff is entitled to recover his share of the property. Very strong authority is required for upholding such a contention. Mr. Ramesam with his usual fairness recognised the anomaly which the acceptance of his contention would involve, but stated that on the decided cases his client is entitled to a decree.