Ms.Meera vs C.Sivakarthikeyan on 5 December, 2019
2. (2006) 4 MLJ 1067 in Judgment dated
27.04.2006 passed in S.A.No.449 of 1994 in between
Chinnannan V. Paranimalai and;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)Documents citing
Chinnannan vs Paranimalai on 27 July, 2006
Chebrolu Thayaramma (Deceased) And ... vs South India Educational Trust Rep. By ... on 3 September, 2007
34. It has been held in Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayana (Dead) 2001 (3) CTC 316, Nagappan v. Ammasai Gounder (2004) 13 SCC 480, Krishnaswamy v. Rangaswamy Gounder 1981 LW 338 and Chinnannan v. Paranimalai and Ors. a similar set of facts, that the minor who attained majority cannot simply seek for recovery of possession of the property alienated by his guardian without seeking to set aside the subject sale deeds within three years from the date of attaining majority.
S.Rajeswari vs N.Rasayee on 24 February, 2017
(vi) In Chinnannan Vs. Paranimalai and Others reported in 2006(5) CTC
169, this Court held as follows:
Angappa Gounder vs Bhavani
(ii) A decision of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 169 (Chinnannan Vs. Paranimalai and others), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
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.
R.Kannan vs Veerammal on 18 March, 2026
“13. The learned counsel for the appellants by relying
on the judgment of this Court in Chinnannan Vs. Paranimalai
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.184, 185, 191 and 192 of 2020
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. … … … ...”
Sankaran vs Muthukrishnan (Died) on 30 March, 2026
In Chinnannan's case, this Court held that a sale deed was
executed by the father himself and as natural guardian of the minor and
the minor was a party to the sale deed, the sale deed does not become
void, unless the minor filed a suit challenging the sale deed, seeking
cancellation and merely seeking declaration of title would not be
maintainable.
1