Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff alleges that the said settlement was void in law as the deed was executed on behalf of the plaintiff by the 10th defendant who was not her legal or qualified guardian, She further alleges that the deed was not for her benefit who was a minor then as 1/3 of her husband's estate was given away to defendants 1 to 4 under the deed. She further states that on the date of the deed or prior to it there was no bona fide dispute for settlement among the members of the plaintiff's husband's family. The debts mentioned in the deed were bogus debts and were not subsisting on the date of the settlement, that the first defendant had no authority to adopt a son under the alleged will of her husband and that even if there was any such authority that authority ended as soon as Prakasa Rao executed the will.

The Subordinate Judge on the evidence led by the parties in O. S. 56 of 1947 held that the settlement deed Ex. B-26 dated 2-2-1942 was void and was not binding on the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the B schedule property that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the past profits on item 4 of the B schedule property for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the suit and that the plaintiff was entitled to future profits' on all the B schedule properties and dismissed the rest of her claim. In O. S. No. 40 of 1948. the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to past and future maintenance with the charge on item 3 of the B schedule property. Hence these appeals on behalf of the second defendant and the plaintiff'.

4. Sri Subrahmaniam, the learned counsel for the respondent urged first that the lower Court has rightly held that the settlement deed dated 2-2-1942 was void and not binding on the respondent. He next contended that the Court below has rightly held that the respondent's father could not represent the respondent as ho was not the natural guardian. Reliance was placed on Ethilavulu Ammal v. Pethakkal, (G) and Chennappa v.Onkarappa, ILR (1940) Mad 358: (AIR 1940 Mad 33) (FB) (H). He next contended that it is not correct to say that the respondent's father acted as a de facto guardian and that the powers of a do facto and de jure guardian were the same.

7. The next objection on behalf of, the plaintiff-respondent in regard to this settlement deed is that her father P.W. 8 had no right to represent her who was a minor then, and as such, the settlement deed was void and unenforceable. The contention of the appellant is that when there was no other relation on the husband's side of the respondent, P.W. 8 who was her natural father was competent to act as guardian and even if he could not be regarded as natural or de jure guardian, he could as well be regarded as de facto guardian and the powers of a do facto guardian being the same, the respondent would be bound by the acts of the guardian it is shown that it is in her interest.