Kathirammal vs Chellapandi on 11 June, 2024
13. The learned counsel for the appellants by relying on the
judgment of this Court in Chinnannan Vs. Paranimalai and others
reported in 2006 (5) CTC 169 and G.Rajendran Vs. Ayyanar @ Velu
Ayyanar reported in 2019 (3) MWN (Civil) 768, submitted that a mere
suit for declaration of title and possession filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable in the absence of prayer to set aside the sale effected by the
first defendant. In the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the sale was effected by natural guardian of the minor
plaintiff. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of such cases,
Section 8 of the said Act was made applicable and in such circumstances,
the sale can be treated only as a voidable transaction and therefore, the
minor was required to file a suit seeking to set aside the sale transactions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/16
S.A.(MD)No.550 of 2009
On the other hand, in the present case on hand, the sale is not effected by
natural guardian and the same is effected by the defacto guardian and
therefore, the sale transaction is hit by Section 11 of the said Act and the
same is a void transaction. Once we come to the conclusion that the sale
by first defendant is a void transaction, the plaintiff can simply ignore the
same and seek declaration of title and recovery of possession. In view of
the said reason, the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants based on the above case laws are rejected.