Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Sankaranarayana Pillai And Anr. vs Kandasamia Pillai on 6 April, 1956
12. When the minor is shown as eo nominee party, when the minors
property is sold by the guardian, such alienation can be questioned by the
minor, within three years from the date of his attaining majority, since the
sale is only voidable. Because of the fact that the property was settled in
favour of the minor and since the property was sold by guardian, it cannot be
held that the sale deed itself is void and therefore, no prayer is necessary
to set aside the sale deed. To support the above position, the learned
counsel for the appellant drew my attention to a Full Bench decision of this
Court in SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI AND ANOTHER vs. KANDASAMIA PILLAI [(1956) II
M.L.J. 411], wherein while answering the points that if the minor is eo
nominee party to a sale deed, is it necessary for him to sue for the
cancellation of the document or is it suffice, if he files the suit for
declaration, excluding the sale, as such, the Full Bench has arrived at an
uniform conclusion and had held as follows:
Divya Dip Singh & Ors vs Ram Bachan Mishra & Ors on 24 October, 1996
13. The above position of law is strengthened by a decision of the
Supreme Court in DIVYA DIP SINGH AND OTHERS vs. RAM BACHAN MISHRA AND OTHERS
(AIR 1997 SC 1465) wherein also it is held that sale effected by natural
guardian after guardian ad litem was discharged is not void and if the minor
want to challenge the sale within the limitation, he cannot ignore the sale
deed executed by the guardian as void. Applying the above principle also, it
is to be held, the contention of the plaintiff, that Ex.A.2 is void and it
need not be set aside or cancelled, cannot be accepted and if at all, it is
only a voidable document and this being the voidable document, it should be
cancelled within the limitation i.e. within three years from the date of
minor attaining the majority.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anjalai And 6 Others vs Arumuga Chettiar And Another on 1 October, 1999
In ANJALAI AND 6 OTHERS vs. ARUMUGA CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER (2000
(II) CTC 154) also, a question has arisen whether the release deed executed
by the parents of erstwhile minor should be cancelled before staking any
claim, wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court, relying on the above
said Full Bench judgment of this Court, has come to the conclusion that the
document does not became void but only voidable and this being the position,
without setting aside the release deed, the suit filed for declaration alone
cannot be maintained. Following the above settled position of law and
considering the admitted facts, that the suit property has been alienated by
the natural guardian, showing the minor as a eo nominee a party, the plaintiff
ought to have filed the suit for cancelling the Ex.A.2 sale deed and the suit
filed without such prayer, paying court fee, is not maintainable. For the
foregoing reasons, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of
the appellant and the result would be, the findings of the trial Court, as far
as the appellant/4th defendant is concerned, have to be set aside.
1