{"id":75967,"date":"1969-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969"},"modified":"2018-09-10T03:50:41","modified_gmt":"2018-09-09T22:20:41","slug":"kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","title":{"rendered":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 440<\/div>\n
Author: Parthasarathi<\/div>\n
Bench: S Ahmed, Parthasarathi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
       Parthasarathi,  J.   <\/p>\n
 1.  The main question  for decision in this appeal relates to a plea  of limitation  ,  which along with  other defences,  was successfully urged in the trial Court to non-suit   the  plaintiff.   The  plaintiff, and the 12th defendant who  tool no part in the proceeding,  are sisters and their father is the Ist  defendant in this action.   Their mother  died in  1932.  At  a time when both the daughters were still minors,  the  Ist defendant  conveyed  on 11-7-1938  under six  separate deeds,  the property belonging to them to the defendants  4  to  9.  He purported  to act on their  behalf   as guardian though by  that time  both of them were married.   The plaintiff, who is younger  in age,  was however  still living with her father,  the consummation of the marriage apparently not having taken place,  by the date of  the  sales.  They are impugned on the ground  that they were not justified by necessity.  Nor were they effected for the benefit of the minor or for proper price.  The  father is charged with having acted in bad faith and the sale proceeds had not been accounted for.\n<\/p>\n
          2.   The sales that are  impeached were effected in  1938  and this action in forma  pauper is was commenced on April  20,  1954.  the age of the plaintiff was given as  27  years  as on the date of the plaint.  That would imply that she attained the age of majority in 1945.   The plaintiff avers that the several acts  relating to  management  by the Ist defendant and the nature of her title were concealed form her knowledge and that the plaintiff was  told when she questioned her father that there was no property of her mother.   The  plea  advanced in the pleading is that by  reason of the fraud and deception practiced by her father,  she was kept in the dark as to her right to sue and she came to know about her right only about  the middle of the year  1947.   The suit is thus said to be saved form the bar of limitation.  No relief for setting aside of the sales  is prayed  for and the plaintiff asked for partition and possession of her half share of the property.  Her  sister did not  join in the suit.  Nor did she support the case of the plaintiff by appearance at the trial  or participation in the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
           The Ist  defendant denied the charges of fraud and deception.  He asserted that the sales were effected with the approval  and knowledge of the plaintiff’s  husband and father-in-law  and the price realised was adequate.  The sales were effected because it was beneficial to sell the property.  The   moiety of sale  proceeds of the plaintiff was paid over to the plaintiff’s  father-in-law  and husband.   The alliances filed a separate pleading  and resisted the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The Subordinate Judge,  Ongole,  who tried the suit held that the suit is barred by limitation.  The learned Judge also held that the sales in dispute were effected by the Ist defendant as guardian  of the plaintiff  and the 12th defendant  and that  the transactions are valid and  binding on the plaintiff .   The learned Judge also found that there was a deliberate over-valuation of the suit property by the plaintiff and that at the time of the institution of the suit,  the market value of the property was about  Rs.  500\/-  per acre.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The plaintiff has preferred this appeal and the main point for determination is,  whether the suit was brought within the time allowed by law.\n<\/p>\n
       5.   It is necessary to set out certain  relevant facts before considering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.   The elder sister of the plaintiff,  who is  impleaded as the 12th defendant,  refused to join the plaintiff in the institution of the suit.  Nor did the 12th  defendant,  raise any dispute at any time questioning the validity of the alienation’s effected by her father.   The  12th defendant  did not participate at the  trial and chose  to remain ex parte.   The  dispute relates to the sale of about 13  acres of dry land comprised in S.  No.  6  and situate  at  Manidipalem  village in Ongole  Taluk.   The lands were admittedly held by the plaintiff’s  mother,  who, it appears acquired  title to them  under a will made by her grandmother,  Kolluri  Chenchamma on the 24th  of July,  1924.   The  plaintiff’s  mother granted a lease under  Ex. B-4  on the 17th  of June,  1927  under which the rent reserved for the entire extent of land was Rs.  70\/-  per year.  The  tenant appears  to have complained in a post-card  Ex.  B-5 addressed by him to the Ist defendant on 15th  May,  1931 that the rent was exorbitant.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  12th defendant is stated to have been born  in 1921;  and it would, therefore,  appear that shortly after the sales,  she attained majority.  In the pleading of the Ist  defendant,  he gives the date of birth of the plaintiff as  11-11-1924.  The  Ist defendant was  a clerk serving under the District Board and was not a resident of the village where the lands were   situate.  The Ist defendant also pointed out in his pleading that the testatrix,  who made the will in  1924,  had only a woman’s  estate and there was thus  a could on the title,  because of the incompetence of the testatrix.  If that were the correct position,  the will would be inoperative and by the date of the death of the plaintiff’s  mother in  1932,  she did not prescribe   for  title by adverse possession.  This flaw in the title was one of the consideration that weighed  with the Ist defendant in effecting the sales.   The income was not regularly released and it was never  more than  Rs.  70\/-  per year.   They were dry lands of poor quality  and only  3  acres out of the total extent was stated to be of comparatively  better quality.  The rest of the extent was of saline soil.\n<\/p>\n
           7.   The plaintiff’s  father-in-law  was not a stranger to the Is defendant.  The  two families were related to each other even prior to the plaintiff’s   marriage, and it was not a distant relationship either.  The  plaintiff’s  father-in-law  was no other than the Ist defendant’s  sister’s  husband.\n<\/p>\n
         8.   In paragraph  4  of the plaint,  it is alleged, inter alia,  that the document of title relating to the property were  never   made available to the plaintiff and they  were in fact suppressed by the Ist defendant who is charged with having taken   undue advantage of the  minority of the plaintiff by abusing the fiduciary capacity   in which he was placed.  it is also said  that the moneys realised by the sales  were never accounted for.   The plaintiff avers that till  1947,, she never knew and  could never know on account of the deception  and fraud practiced by the Ist  defendant that her mother died possessed of the properties.   The sales were effected  without any necessity  therefore.  The  plaintiff was not apprised of the sales and was kept in the dark about them.   They were effected for very low amounts.  it is necessary to set out a few sentences from the paragraph;\n<\/p>\n
            “The petitioner was also being told by the Ist  respondent that he had no property and that the petitioner’s  mother had not  property  and it was very difficult fro him  to get on with his petty salary.  The petitioner,  believed  the said representations.   The non-disclosure of the several   alienations made by the Ist respondent and the deliberate false representations  that the plaintiff’s  mother had no property made by the Ist respondent are  tantamount to fraud in the eye of law.”   When fraud is alleged against the defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the fraud which he alleges.   In the present case, fraud is alleged as a ground upon which the plaintiff justifies the institution of the suit long  after the expiry of the period normally allowed for the institution of the suit.  Though no specific reference to the provisions of Section 18  of the Limitation Act is made in the plaint, its manifest that the pleading proceeds upon the hypothesis that the right to institute the suit has been kept from the knowledge of the plaintiff by means  of fraud    practiced on her.  The  requirements of  Rule  6  of  Order  7,  Civil  Procedure Code,  are clear.  it is necessary that the plaint should show the ground upon which the exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed.  The question is whether  the plaint fin this case fulfills the requirement of law.\n<\/p>\n
       9.     As observed by Lord Selborne  in Wallingford v.  Mutual Society,   (1880)  5  AC  685 to p.  697:\n<\/p>\n
           “With regard to fraud,  if there be any principle which is perfectly will settled it is that general allegations however strong may be the words in which they are stated,  are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court  ought to take notice.”\n<\/p>\n
 It is not the mere use of general words such as  ‘fraud’  or  ‘collusion’  that can serve as the foundation for the plea.  Such expressions are quite ineffective  to  give  the legal basis in the absence of particular  statements of fact which alone  can furnish the requisite basis for the action.  in the present case, it is necessary to scrutinise the averments in the plaint minutely in order to ascertain  whether  the particulars constitution the fraud are set out with reasonable precision.  If the  general word,  of which we  find there is a superfluity,  are omitted,  what is it that remains in the pleading of the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n
         10.   The first averment is to the effect that the documents of title relating to the property were never  made available  to the petitioner and that they were suppressed by her father.  Assuming that this allegation is correct,  does  it  establish fraud.  The fact that the documents of title in the hands of the Ist defendant were not handed over to the plaintiff,  does not necessarily indicate a fraudulent  purpose.  It is obvious that when the property was sold,  he title deeds,  if any,  would be made over to the purchasers.  That  apart,    in   the  case on hand, the Ist  defendant purposed to convey  the property only on the basis that it belonged  to the  plaintiff and the Ist  defendant and not on any other footing.  when the impugned sales themselves proceeded on the basis that the property that was conveyed belonged to the minors that there was no need to prove the  title of the minors and absence of title deeds was no impediment to   the plaintiff or persons interested in her in taking action to challenge the validity of the alienations.   It is clear that the omission to deliver  the documents of title,  even if those documents were with the Ist  defendant, would  not  amount to fraud,  because the  sales was made explicitly on the footing that it was the property  of the minors alone that was sold.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        11.   The next  complaint that we find in the pleading is that the Ist defendant  took undue advantage of the minority  of  the petitioner and abused his fiduciary  capacity and failed to account  ‘for  the  moneys realised  by him.  None of these  charges can have any bearing on the question whether the plaintiff is entitled  to the extension of time under Section  18  of the Limitation Act.  It will be readily  appreciated that all these complaints,  even if true,  do not make out that the plaintiff was kept in the dark about her right of suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        12.    The next grievance that is set out is that the sales were effected without necessity and without accounting for the  profits realised by the Ist defendant.  This averment against has no bearing on the point in issue.   it is next said that the plaintiff was not informed about the sales.  We do not conceive it tot be the  duty of the guardian to notify the ward  about the sales either during  minority or  after the ward  attains majority.  There is no such obligation cast   on the guardian  under law,  and the omission to  apprise  the plaintiff of the  sales does not in so  facto assume a fraudulent colour.   The  plaintiff herself was not very positive in her  averment as to fraud.  In the passage  extracted above,  after referring   to certain features,  the plaintiff only described  them as being  tantamount to fraud in the eye of law.  it is obvious that none of the features mentioned by the plaintiff with the exception of the alleged false representations can constitute fraud.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         13.   It is no doubt alleged that there were deliberate false representations made by the Ist defendant that the mother  left no property.   But  no particulars are given as to when such representations  were made.  The allegation is very vague  and is not in conformity with the requirements of Rule  6  of  Order  7.   It is well  settled that in order to make  out extension of time for the institution of suit on the ground  of fraud,  it should relate to the active concealment of the right of the plaintiff to institute the action.  It is necessary to make out that as a result of the fraudulent design,  the plaintiff has been prevented from exercising   the right  to  sue in respect of the particular property.  A mere allegation that the Ist defendant that the mother had no property,  is inadequate  to make out that there was any concealment,  by fraudulent design,  form the plaintiff becoming aware of her  right to impeach the alienations in question.  it may be that the assertion that there was no property   of the mother was  made in the sense that after the sales  there was no further property of the mother in the hands of the Ist defendant.  The averment is highly dubious and  equivocal.  There is nothing to sustain  the plea that there were fraudulent representations so as to prevent the plaintiff having knowledge of her right to challenge the alienations in question.  It  is an accepted principle that charges of fraud must be clear and specific and should contain detailed particulars.  A  general allegation that there had been a misrepresentation,  without specifying the time when it was made,  the occasion for the query and the answer, and the precise representation that is said to have been made cannot be of any avail when the provisions of Section  18  of Limitation Act are sought to be invoked.  There   is nothing   to show that there has been a design or a conspiracy to conceal the particulars relating to the sales.  Mere silence or a passive attitude on the part of the Ist defendant or that the Ist defendant withheld the information as to the sale,  are insufficient because what is required under Section  18  is that the person having a right to institute the suit has been kept form gaining the knowledge of such right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       14.   Another drawback in the plaint is that no fraud or wilful concealment of facts is attributed to the defendants 4  to 9  against whom alone the claim for partition is to be proved.  Nowhere in the plaint is there nay indication that the defendants 4  to 9  were accessory to the fraud, committed or practiced by the Ist   defendant.  There is consequently no basis for the enlargement of the period  of limitation so far as the defendants 4  to  9  are concerned.   The right to partition is claimed against them and it is they who are said to be in unlawful possession of the property.  The  fraud that is relevant to sustain  the claim against them can only be a fraudulent design  of  concealment on their  part;  or, alternatively, it must be made out that they were  accessory to the fraud committed by  the Ist  defendant or that they are not transferees in good faith  and for valuable consideration.  The  plaint does not disclose any act or omission on their part to show that they  are guilty of fraud or accessory thereto.  No is it the case  of  the plaintiff that there was no consideration at all for the sale.  We are accordingly of opinion that even on the basis of the averments in the plaint,  no case for  the application of the provisions  of Section  18  has been made out.  In any case,  so far as the   defendants 4  to  9  are concerned there is a conspicuous absence on the part of the plaintiff of nay averment to entitle  her to the benefit of the provisions of  Section  18  against them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       15.    We are of opinion that the appeal should fail even on this short ground.  But as the other questions also had been argued,  we shall deal with them  too.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        16.   It is admitted by the plaintiff that verified copes of the sale deeds were obtained in or about  July  1947.  It follows  that whatever may have been the position  prior to July  1947,  after  that date,  the plaintiff did not suffer from any disability  occasioned by the fraud of the Ist defendant. it is stated in paragraph  9  of the plaint,  that after the plaintiff came to learn of the transactions,  notices were  caused to be issued early in  1948.  The  reference,  apparently, is to Ex.  B-6  dated 6th  January,  1948.  the plaintiff admitted that she could not pursue promptly  her remedies because her father-in-laws  passed away after  1948  and the family was thrown in debt.  The question that arises for consideration  is,  whether the inaction of the plaintiff form July   1947  till April,  1945  irrespective  of any other facts does not render this action time-barred.  This would depend upon ht provision of the Limitation Act which is applicable to the case.   It  was contended before  us by the learned counsel   for the appellant that by the date  of the sales,  the plaintiff had been married  and therefore  the legal guardian was the husband.  It is pointed out that as a consequence of the marriage,  the Ist  defendant could no longer effect the alienations as the legal guardian and therefore,  the sales  are void and do not come within the purview of Art.  44  of the Limitation Act,  1908.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         17.     It was   pressed before us that the case is governed by  the ratio of the decision in  Ethilavulu Ammal  v.  Pethakkal,  ,  Satyanarayana Rao,  J.,  was in that case  dealing with a surrender made on behalf    of a minor Hindu widow  by the father  as her guardian.  The learned Judge  applied the principal well known to Hindu  law,  that a surrender by a widow is not a transfer.  She  simply withdraws herself form the ownership and the succession is accelerated by her voluntary effacement.  A  surrender does to achieve  or being about a transfer of property.  Moreover, it must be a voluntary act of the limited owner herself  and not of any other person.  The decision to efface her interest in the estate is to be of the widow  alone.  It was these consideration that impleaded the learned Judge to hold that there was no transfer of property at al and the case would not attract the provision of Article  44  of the Limitation Act.  After expressing his decision on this principal the learned Judge  nevertheless proceeded to state that the father was, if at  all,  only a de facto guardian of the widowed daughter and a transfer effected by such a person  would not bring the case  within the scope of Article  44.  When the decision was reached that there was  no transfer of property at all,  the further  question whether a de facto guardian’s  transfer is one within the  meaning of Article  44  at all did not call for any decisions.  The observations on this aspect made by the learned Judge,  cannot  be considered to be the ratio decidendi of that case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       18.   The learned Judge was not unmindful of the language of Article 44  which revised for the setting aside of alienations by guardian.  No distinction is made in Article  44  between  de facto or lawful  guardians.  There is no warrant  for reading the provisions of Article  44  so as to restrict its operation to transfers  effected only by lawful  guardians other  than de facto nes.  The expression used  by the legislature is ‘guardian’  simplicities.  It admits of no doubt that a de facto  guardian has competence,  in certain circumstances to convey    the ward’s    estate.  Ever since the early decision in Hanuman  Pershad’s   case,  Courts have always recognised the validity of alienations made  by a de factor guardian.  we are unable  to accept the reasoning of the learned  Judge in support of his observation that a de facto guardian’s  sale  is outside the  purview   of Article  44.  Nor  are we persuaded that the reliance placed by him on the decision in Chennapa v. Onkarappa, ILR  1940  Mad  358  =  (AIR  1940  Mad  33)  (FB)  is apposite.  cases relating to the power of acknowledgment of a debt,  rest on a different basis and do not furnish   an acceptable analogy.  The observations of the Federal Courts in Sriramulu v. Pundarikakshayya,  1950-1  Mad  LJ  586  =(AIR  1949  FC  218)  go to show that the  reasoning of Satyanarayana  Rao,  J.  in his obiter dicta,  runs counter to the settled proposition as to legal competence of a de facto guardian.  At pages  604-605,  the Federal Court  observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “The  dealings of such a guardian with regard to the estate of the infant  would,  in Hindu  Law, be not regarded as void  altogether but would be voidable only;  and the same  tests would be applied in determining the validity of such acts as are applied in the case of a de jure guardian.  To this extent and this extent only,  a de facto guardian is to be treated  as having the same  position as a de jure guardian in Hindu  law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      19.  There is a long and  unbroken current  of authority to sustain the view that the Hindu  Law recognises the power of a de facto guardian to deal with the property  of a minor  in cases of necessity.  Courts have repeatedly held that alienations by such guardians are only voidable  in the same manner as alienations made by a de jure guardian.   See  Seetharamanna v.  Appiah,  ILR  49  Mad  768  =  (AIR  1926  Mad 457)  and Muthukumara  Chetty  v.  Anthony  Udayan,  ILR  38  Mad  867  =  (AIR  1915  Mad  296).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        20.  There are, however, some decisions which laid down that Article  44 is inapplicable to alienations made by de facto guardians and they were relied  upon by Satyanarayana  Rao,  J.  Mention  may be made of the decisions in Thayammal  v.  Kuppanna  Koundan,  ILR  38  Mad  1125 = (AIR  1915  Mad  659  (2)  )  and Ramaswamy  v.  Kasinatha  Iyer,  AIR  1928  Mad  226  (2).  It is difficult to sustain the ratio of  these decisions.  The reliance placed by the  learned Judges who decided ILR  38  Mad  1125= (AIR  1915  Mad  659)  (supra)  on the Privy  Council  decision  in Mata  din v.  Ahmed  Ali,  ILR (1912)  34  All  213  is based upon a faulty appreciation  of the effect  of the decision of the Privy Council.  The  Privy  Council had to deal with  a case  under Muhammadan law,  where the acts  of a de facto guardian  are held to be  completely unauthorised or void.  The  application of that principle to the position  of a de facto guardian in Hindu  Law is misconceived and is opposed to a long  current of authority.  The subsequent decision in AIR  1928  Mad  226  (2)  (supra)  and    (supra)  have merely adopted the ruling in ILR  38  Mad  1125  =  (AIR  1915  Mad  659)  (supra)  without reference to the erroneous premises on which  it rested.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        21.   The alienation made by a de facto guardian are on a par with  those made  by a de jure guardian.  if they lack  justification, they are in both cases voidabel.  And,  when they are voidable,  the application of Article  44  is an inescapable  corollary.  To hold that the alienations made by  de facto guardian are voidable  but at the same time they   are voidable,  the  application of Article  44  is an alienations  made by a de facto guardian are voidable  but at the same time they are outside the purview of Article  44,  is to take up an inconsistent position.  This incongruity was not justified in the above cases by reference to any provision of law or principle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         22.   It is, however, unnecessary for us to labour the point further, in view of the distinguishing feature of the case on hand.  In respect of the property now in dispute,  there was no doubt that the Ist defendant  was allowed  by the lawful guardians of the two  married daughters to make  the alienations to the defendants  4  to 9 .   The  position virtually is that  the lawful guardians themselves  effected the sales.  We see no reason to depart form the conclusion of the trial Court that the Ist defendant acted with the consent of the lawful guardian.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       23.  In ILR  38  Mad  867 =  (AIR  1915  Mad  296)  (supra)  while the father of a minor son and his lawful guardian was  alive,  the mother effected a sale of the property of the minor son.  The property was settled jointly on the minor and his mother and the minor  was described in the deed of settlement as being under her protection.  the learned Judges observed at page  875:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “The  son was to live with his mother.   It may be that the Zamindar did not part with his guardianship altogether  and that the mother’s  power as guardian was  restricted to the property but there can  be no doubt that she did become his guardian under Ex.  N.  with respect to the properties  comprised in it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        24.   The position in this case is similar,  that, in so far as the alienations are concerned,  the de facto guardian was authorised by the lawful guardians to act in the manner that he did.  we see no reason  to differ from the finding of the lower court  that the Ist defendant had acted with the concurrence of the lawful guardians before he effected the sales.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           25.    This  conclusion is rendered irresistible by some significant but unexplained features in this case.  Firstly, there is the indisputable fact that the 12th  defendant  never   felt aggrieved by the sales.  She  was aged 17  at the time and was mature  enough to judge for herself the property  of her father’s  act.  It is hardly likely that she and her husband would have  refrained form taking action if the father’s  dealings were vitiated by any sinister or improper conduct or if she  was not in receipt of her share of the realised price.  Secondly,  there is the clinching circumstance that  in the  lawyer’s  notice  Ex. B-6   dated  6-1-1948,  issued under the instructions of the plaintiff’s   father-in-law,  nothing was said in disparagement of the sales.  No dispute was  raised about them and the notice was   confined to a claim to another item of property.  It is necessary  to bear in mind  that the plaintiff’s  father-in-law  was a clerk in the District   Court, Rajahmundry.  He did not lack the means of judging the propriety of the transaction and was intimately associated with the Ist defendant by reason of antecedent relationship.    He  could not have been handicapped by lack of competent legal advice,  which he could have for the mere  asking.  Nor did he labour  under nay ignorance of the essential facts of the transaction.  Even after the copes of the sale deeds were obtained and a notice was issued by a lawyer,  he did not chose to assail the transactions  of sale.  There is the further  circumstance that the plaintiff’s  husband does not choose to give evidence denying his approval of the sales,  though the Ist defendant urged the plea in this pleading.  The  cumulative effect of all these facts or omissions is decisive  and we have no reason to reject the case  of the Ist defendant that the sales were made by him in his  name because he was authorised to effect them by the sons-in-law  and daughters.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        26.   The sales are, in substance,  though not in form,  alienations made by the dejure guardians.  In a recent decision of the Madras  High  Court  in Mayilasami Chettiar  v.  Kalimaal,  1969-1  Mad  LJ  177  the consent of the lawful  guardian was expressed in the form of an attestation of the deed executed by a de facto guardian.  It was deemed sufficient to assimilate the transaction to an alienation made by the former.  After reviewing some of the earlier authorities,  the learned Judge observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “Thus, it is amply clear that even where there is a legal  guardian in existence,  any alienation of minor’s  property by a de facto guardian would be valid  if it is for necessity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       27.   In the case on hand,  the alienation was not for necessity but it was made because it was adjudged to be beneficial to the interests of the minor.  The annual  income which  was not steady for constant  was only Rs. 70\/-.   The  lands were of poor  qualify.  The plaintiff’s  husband was in the East  Godavari  District, whereas the  12th  defendant’s  husband was employed  in the Hyderabad  State.  The Ist defendant himself was in service in a different place.   The lands, if not wholly unproductive, were manifestly of inferior quality.  The  sales were consequently binding on the minors in the circumstances of the case.  We are of opinion that the provision of the Limitation Act  that is applicable  in Article  44.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        28.   It is a matter of admission that there was no question of the plaintiff having been kept in ignorance of her  right after July,  1947.  The suit should have been instituted before the end of  July, 1950 but it was actually laid on April  20,  1954.  If Article  44  is applicable and in our opinion that is the true position,  the  suit cannot be said to be saved  from the bar of limitation even if the  plaintiff’s  story as to fraudulent misrepresentation or omission is accepted as true.  this is because the maximum length  of  time for which extension is possible is only three years form  July  1947.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        29.   In this view of the question,  it is not necessary to determine the correctness of the approach made by the lower Court.  it only remains to a point out that the plaintiff having been a minor on the date of sales,  the criterion really should  be whether the period of limitation to  challenge or set aside the sales did not  begin to run form the date of sales,  and  to consider whether there was any supervening fraud that held that cause of action  in abeyance.  Normally speaking,  there could not have been any question of the   plaintiff having been defrauded till she  attained the competence to sue.  It  should be borne in mind,  that the plaintiffs  case  is that the right to sue was kept concealed form her.  It is obvious that the relevant point of time is when she had the competence to sue;  and the test should be whether she was   entitled to extension of time by reason  of fraud practiced on her at the relevant point of time.  According to the Is defendant,  the plaintiff attained majority in  1942.  In the absence of a specific plea that there was any  fraudulent representation in  1942n  or  thereafter, no question of the extension of time under Section  18,  can really arise.  Neither   of the contesting parties defined the position  correctly  and the lower Court also had not clarified it and had not formulated the question precisely.  We are of opinion that in any view of the matter,  the suit is barred by time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     30.   In the result, the appeal fails  and is dismissed with costs.  The appellant will pay to the State the Court-fee  due on the memorandum of appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 31. Appeal  dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 440 Author: Parthasarathi Bench: S Ahmed, Parthasarathi JUDGMENT Parthasarathi, J. 1. The main question for decision in this appeal relates to a plea of limitation , which along with other defences, was successfully urged in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\"},\"wordCount\":5226,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\",\"name\":\"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969","datePublished":"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969"},"wordCount":5226,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969","name":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-09T22:20:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasturi-lakshmibayamma-vs-sabnivis-venkoba-rao-and-ors-on-14-march-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kasturi Lakshmibayamma vs Sabnivis Venkoba Rao And Ors. on 14 March, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}