ARUMILLI VEERARAGAVALU Vs. ARUMILLI SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT has been held in a long series of cases beginning with Unni V/s. Kunchi Amma [1891] 14 Mad. 26: see also Kamaraju V/s. Gunnayya A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 322, that a minor has not got to set aside the transaction by a guardian in suing to recover the property. He can ignore the transaction and merely pray for possession. That being so, he does not seek cancellation of the instrument. In this respect, his position is different from that of an adult executing the document himself as pointed out in Unni V/s. Kunchi Amma [1891] 14 Mad. 26.

(2.) THEREFORE, Clause (4-A), Section 7, Court-fees Act, does not apply. We do not agree with the decision in Alagar Aiyangar V/s. Srinivasa Ayyangar . In such cases it is proper that the plaintiff should not add unnecessary prayers to confuse the Court and himself. When such prayers-are unnecessary it is best to expunge them. In the present case the plaintiff is willing to expunge the words in prayer (1) from the words "setting aside." If he does so, the Court- fees paid by him is enough. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.