HANMANT GURUNATH KULKARNI Vs. RAMAPPA LAGAMAPPA ILAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these. The properly in anil belonged to plaintiff No.2 while he was a minor. His mother, us his natural guardian, sold it to defendant No.1 for Rs. 700 on May 15, 1905. The defendant No. I obtained possession. On April 2,; 909 he sold the property to defendant No 2, and defendant No 2 has been in possession since then. Plaintiff No. 2 attained majority on April 11 1916, and he conveyed his interest in these lands, with another land to plaintiff No.1 for Rs. 1J500 on September 13, 1916. The present suit was filed on December 20, 1918, by plaintiff No. 1, who purchased the interest of plaintiff No 2, to set aside the alienation made by the mother of plaintiff No. 2 during his minority, an for possession;and mesne profits.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 pleaded that the sale by the guardian of plaintiff No. 2 was for necessity, and that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred. Defendant No. 2 raised the same pleas.

(3.) The trial Court, found that the alienation by plaintiff No.2's mother to defendant No. 1 was nut for necessity. In dealing with the question relating to the alienation by the guardian during the minority of plaintiff No. 2, the Court observed that the .alienation was not binding on plaintiff No. 2, and must be set aside.