High CourtsDivision Bench(1912) 02 MAD CK 0003

Sivavadevelu Pillay vs Ponnammal and Govindammal and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 February 1912 · Citation: 15 Ind. Cas. 365

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ralph Benson, J · Bakewell, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 376 words

In S.A. No. 1406 of 1910.

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.P 271 : 27 I.A. 69 : 4 C.W.N. 329 which was followed by this Court in Madugula

Latchiah v. Palli Mukhalinga 30 M.K 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.K 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.P 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.P 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.K 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.

4.

Second Appeal No. 1424 of 1910 follows Second Appeal No. 1406 of 1910 and for the like reasons as are recorded in our judgment therein,

we* dismiss this appeal also with costs.