Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The prayer in O.S.No.585 of 2006 was for declaration of tile and for permanent injunction.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit A schedule property was originally owned by one Sarangapani Gounder. During his lifetime, he executed a registered Will dated 09.12.1976, bequeathing his property granting life interest in favour of his wife Adilakhsmi and thereafter to his daughter Kalyani @ Sarathammal and the vested remainder shall go to his grandsons, who are the first plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5.

8. Per contra, Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.Vaikunth, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is true that Sarangapani Gounder executed a Will on 09.12.1976 and he died on 24.08.1984. Thereafter, as per the Will, his wife Adilakhsmi was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Though the said Adilakhsmi and her daughter / third defendant, had life interest over http://www.judis.nic.in the property, they accelerated their right and sold the suit property in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 under Exs.B1 and B6 and the vested remainders were also parties to the sale deeds.

10. In the decisions referred supra, it has been consistently held that alienation of minor's property by the guardians is not void and the sale should have been assailed within a period of three years from the date of attainment of majority of the minor. It is pertinent to note that as per the Will, Ex.A2, after the demise of the testator, the property will go to Adilakhsmi as the first life estate holder and after her lifetime, the testator's daughter / the third defendant would enjoy the property as life estate holder and thereafter, the vested remainder would go to his grand sons. However, after the testator passed away on 24.08.1984, the life estate holders and the vested remainders have executed sale deeds under Exs.B1 and B6, thereby they sold the entire suit property in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the intention of the testator, only after the life time of the life estate holders, the grand children of the testator would get the vested interest and hence, the sale made by the life estate holders in the year 1988 is only the life interest and the entire title will not be transferred in favour of the defendants 1 and 2.

13. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the life estate holder had sold the property. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that context held that the life estate holder can sell her life interest only. However, in the case on hand, the vested remainders also have joined for execution of the sale deed. So, the decision does not support the case of the appellants.