AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[S.A. 1406] - 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 12 years from the date of alienation in 1904, under Article 144, or 3 years from the date
of the plaintiff''s majority under Article 44, of the Limitation Act, 1887. We are of opinion that the case falls within the decision of the Privy Council
in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram ILR (1899) M. 279 which was followed by this court in Madugula Letchiak v. Pally
Mukkalinga ILR (1907) M. 593 and that Article 44 applies. In view of these decisions we are unable to follow the cases in Unni v. Kunhi Amma
ILR (1890) M. 26 and Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan (1896) 7. M. J. 131. We may point out that in Gnana Sambanda Pandara
Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram ILR (1899) M. 279, 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. Kunhi Amma ILR (1890) M. 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.
The judgment in Unni v. Kunhi Amma ILR (1890) 14 M. 26 is obiter as regards a sale by minor''s guardian which is the case specially provided
for by Article 44, and no other authority appears to have been considered in the case reported in the Madras Law Journal.
The second appeal fails and is dismissed.
[S.A. 1424].-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.