Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) It concurred with the finding that the sale made by the mother was on the ground that she is the legal heir of the Deceased Kannusami Sethuruyar and hence void.

(iii) That Article 60 of the Limitation Act, will not apply as the document is void ab initio and by virtue of the presentation of the suit, the otherwise “voidable” document has become void.

21. This settles the position of law that the minors cannot present a mere suit for declaration of title ignoring a document which is voidable in character when the sale has been executed by the guardian representing the minors. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 of 23 fact that the guardian also represented that she was a co-owner of the property does not make a difference to the fact that the sale had been made by the natural guardian on behalf of the minors.

22. The nature of the document being voidable, the plaintiffs could have avoided the same by some act which is contrary to the sale. In the present case, right from 1976 till the presentation of the plaint in 1991, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs had taken any steps to avoid the document. This only raises a presumption that the minors on attaining majority had stood by the document.