One Krishnoji, Rao, great-grandfather and
grandfather had two sons by name Annoji
Rao and Pilla Santoji. Annoji Rao died in the year 1954 leaving behind him his
widow Makkayyamma and his four
children by name Venkoji Rao, Venkatamma, Vellu
Bai and Narayana Rao. Venkoji Rao, the eldest son, also died in the year 1955,
leaving behind him his widow Akkayyamma and a child by name Gangoji Rao. The
suit property was the ancestral property belonging to the joint family of the
two plaintiffs. Akkayyamma and Makkayyamma, jointly sold the suit property to
the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 29-9-1960, as guardians of the
minor plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the said Akkayyamma and
Makkayamma were not their guardians at any time. The appellants were under the
care and protection of their relative Narasinga Rao. Therefore, they contended
that the said sale was neither necessary nor beneficial to the family and that
Akkayyamma and Makkayyamma had no right to sell the suit property without the
permission of the District Judge.
He denied
that the plaintiffs, in their minority, were under the care and custody of
Narasinga Rao. On the other hand, they contended that they were under the care
and custody of their mothers Akkayyamma and Makkayyamma. According to him,
Makkayyamma was managing the affairs of
the family after the death of her first son Venkoji Rao and the suit property
was sold by her for the legal necessity and benefit of the family. He further
claimed that the mothers of the two plaintiffs were the respective natural
guardians of the two plaintiffs and that therefore, the sale deed executed by
them in his favour was valid and binding on the plaintiffs. He had improved the
land after purchasing the same. The suit was bad for non-joinder of parties.
The Courts
held that the sale was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate.
That finding is not challenged. So, the
Courts were justified in holding that the impugned sale in favour of the
defendant is legal and valid.
Post a Comment