CHANDRAN Vs. N. RANGA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They filed the suit for partition and past and future mesne profits. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Gobindarajulu Naidu. The said Govindarajulu Naidu and his younger brother Rangan executed a sale deed Ex. B. I dated 20-2-1957 in respect of a property of their joint family consisting of the plaintiffs also. The two plaintiffs were then minors. After attaining majority they filed this suit pleading that they were entitled to ⅓rd share in the suit property and the sale was not for legal necessity and their father sold the property for his own immoral purpose, and therefore the sale deed in respect of their ⅓rd share is not binding on them. The plaintiffs impleaded their junior paternal uncle Rangan as the first defendant and the alienee Jagadeeswari ammal as the second defendant. The suit was contested by the alienee second defendant contending that the property was sold for discharging an antecedent debt of the joint family and for meeting marriage expenses of the first defendant and therefore the sale was binding on the plaintiffs.

(2.) The learned District Munsif who tried the suit accepted the plaintiff's case that the sale was not for the benefit of the family and the sale consideration was utilised for immoral purposes of the plaintiff's father and therefore the sale in respect of the plaintiff's share is not valid. Consequently he decreed the suit for partition and also granted a decree for Rs. 500.00 as past profits. The second defendant alienee filed an appeal and the plaintiffs have also filed cross-objections contending that the past profits awarded was low. The Appellate Court did not agree with the finding of the trial Court that the sale was not for family necessity but for immoral purposes of the plaintiff's father. It was held that the sale was for discharging antecedent debts and therefore the sale is binding on the plaintiffs. In the result therefore it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) As against this the plaintiffs have come on this second appeal. Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs argued that the sale deed Ex. B-1 so far as the plaintiff's share is concerned is defective in law and therefore it is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. He argued so with reference to Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. According to the learned counsel as per section 8 of the Act the guardian of a minor shall not transfer by sale the estate of a minor without previous permission of the Court, and if he had done so the sale is voidable at the instance of the minor, and in the present case no such permission was obtained from the Court, section 8 so far as it is relevant for our purpose reads as under :