PARAPATYAGAR SREENIVASA RAO Vs. KOTIGI EARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the plaintiff was a minor the suit land belonging to him was sold to the defendant by D. Ramakrishna Rao who held a power-of-attorney as agent of Sundaramma, the mother and guardian of the plaintiff. The sale was for Rs. 300 under Ex. 1 dated 3 February 1912. The plaintiff's suit was filed within three years after his becoming major, and the prayer in the plaint was to set aside the sale-deed and to recover possession with mesne profits.

(2.) The defendant's plea was that the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts upheld the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has accordingly preferred this second appeal.

(3.) It is better to note the recitals in the sale-deed in the first instance. Such recitals form a contemporaneous record of the representations made to the alienee, on the faith of which the alienee purchased the property. In the sale deed the only recital is that the property was sold for " our expenses." Next I proceed to note the exact averments in the written statement filed by the defendant in the present suit. Para. 2 of the written statement is as follows: The said Ramakrishna Rao effected the sale on behalf of the next friend under the mukhtarnama obtained from her. Therefore the said sale should be confirmed. At the time of the sale suit land was barren. The plaintiff's next friend could not pay Government theerva. Fearing that the suit land would be lost if it was sold by auction for Government revenue and with the intention of affording facilities for the maintenance of plaintiff she sold the suit land. The sale is not fraudulent.