9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of alienation by de facto guardian. 2. Legal necessity for the alienation. 3. Bar of limitation for the suit. 4. Errors in the appellate court's judgment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Alienation by De Facto Guardian: The plaintiff challenged the alienation of her property by her maternal uncle (defendant No. 5) who acted as her de facto guardian. The trial court found that the alienation was neither valid nor genuine and was not binding on the plaintiff. It was established that the de facto guardian transferred the property without legal necessity, making the sale void ab initio. The appellate court, however, upheld the sale, claiming it was for the benefit of the minor and legally binding. 2. Legal Necessity for the Alienation: The appellate court concluded that the sale was for legal necessity, including repayment of creditor's dues, loan for obsequies of the minor's father, and marriage expenses of the minor. The High Court scrutinized these claims: - Repayment of Creditor's Dues: The creditor (D.W. 3) claimed a debt of Rs. 300, but his financial instability and lack of documentation undermined his credibility. The trial court doubted the existence of this loan, and the appellate court overlooked these doubts. - Obsequies of the Minor's Father: Defendant No. 5 admitted he did not incur any loan for the Sudhi ceremony, contradicting the sale deed's claims. The High Court found no substantial evidence to support this necessity. - Marriage Expenses: Evidence showed the marriage was in Tolakanva form, where the groom's side bore all expenses. Witnesses confirmed that no expenses were incurred by the plaintiff's side, invalidating this claim of legal necessity. 3. Bar of Limitation for the Suit: The trial court applied Article 44 of the old Limitation Act of 1908, concluding the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The High Court clarified that for alienations by de facto guardians, the limitation period is 12 years, not the shorter period applicable to de jure guardians. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. 4. Errors in the Appellate Court's Judgment: The High Court identified significant errors in the appellate court's judgment. The appellate court failed to consider crucial evidence and admissions from defense witnesses, misquoted evidence, and did not provide adequate reasoning for reversing the trial court's findings. The High Court emphasized that the appellate court must address the trial court's reasoning and independently evaluate all evidence, which it failed to do. Conclusion: The High Court reversed the appellate court's decree, finding that the sale was not for legal necessity and did not bind the plaintiff. The High Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting her the declaration that the sales under Exts. C, B, and A were not binding on her interest and entitling her to the reliefs prayed for, along with costs throughout.
|
