Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Veni, Rosi, Kesavan And ... vs Perumal, Deivaanai Ammal And ... on 25 October, 2002
Showing the contexts in which sale deed - null and void appears in the document
Change context size
Current

Madras High Court Veni, Rosi, Kesavan And ... vs Perumal, Deivaanai Ammal And ... on 25 October, 2002 Author: K Gnanaprakasam Bench: K Gnanaprakasam JUDGMENT K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1.The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, who have filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 14.8.1986 is null and void and for permanent injunction and also for partition of the suit properties and allotment of their shares. 2.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3. The suit property was originally purchased by one Munusamy, father of the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant, under the sale deed dated 27.5.1976 from Ayilu Naidu. Munusamy died about 12 years back, leaving behind him the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3. After the demise of Munusamy, the 2nd defendant, who is the elder brother of the plaintiffs was looking after the suit property, as the 'Kartha' of the family for and on behalf of the other family members also. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property

plaintiff wants to declare that the sale deed is null and void. Hence, the plaintiff has to pay necessary court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, on the value of the property, for which the document was executed. The money value mentioned in the document is Rs.14,500/-. Instead of paying court fee for the amount of Rs.14,500/- under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff has paid Rs.30.50/- under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act, valuing the property at Rs.400/-. Framing of suit under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not maintainable. The maintainability of the suit has to be decided after due notice and hearing of the parties concerned and also may be collected necessary deficit court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, after making necessary amendment and due notice and hearing of parties."

such, they have to pray for setting aside the sale. Even according to the citations submitted by the plaintiffs' counsel, the limitation period is 3 years from the date of attaining majority of the minors to bring a suit to set aside the sale. A perusal of the documents reveal that the 3rd plaintiff was only aged 17 years and the 4th plaintiff 16 years. The 3rd plaintiff would have attained majority in the year 1990. Hence he could have brought the suit before the year 1993, i.e. before attaining 21 years of age and the 4th plaintiff was aged about only 16 years, he would have attained the age of majority in the year 1991 and hence, he should have brought the suit in the year 1994 itself. Whereas the present suit was filed in the year 1995. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation, in respect of the plaintiffs 3 and 4. The court held that in respect of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, the plaint is rejected. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have prayed for declaration of the sale deed as null and void and therefore, they are ordered to pay the court fee accordingly

8.The learned advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that the suit property is a joint family property and when the plaintiffs were minors, the suit property was sold by their mother and elder brother and the said sale is not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. As such, they need not pray for cancellation of the sale deed and the prayer for declaration that the sale deed is null and void is sufficient and the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act, is also proper.