A guardian’s sale of property settled on minors without court permission cannot defeat their rights.

The plaintiffs claimed rights in the suit property under a registered Settlement Deed dated 6 February 1998, executed by Ilayaperumal in favour of his minor grandchildren.

The second defendant, their father and the guardian named in the deed, later sold the property to the appellant under a sale deed dated 2 February 2001.

The plaintiffs sought declaration of title, cancellation of the sale deed and recovery of possession; the appellant disputed the settlement’s effect and raised limitation.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court partly allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The appellant then brought this second appeal.

1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions invoked by the appellant, including Section 7 and Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in light of the plaintiffs’ ages and the date of institution.

2. Whether the sale deed executed by the guardian without prior permission of the competent court could defeat the plaintiffs’ rights under the Settlement Deed.

The Court considered Section 7 and Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as invoked in the substantial questions of law, and stated that limitation must be assessed by reference to the relief claimed, accrual of the cause of action, the dates on which each plaintiff attained majority and the suit’s institution date.

It also treated the absence of permission from the competent court for alienation of property held for minors’ benefit as significant to the sale deed’s validity and enforceability, though it did not identify a specific statutory provision or cite precedent for that proposition.

The Court noted the appellant’s limitation objection and the asserted absence of documentary proof of the plaintiffs’ dates of birth and the suit’s filing date.

It nevertheless did not set out a detailed calculation of limitation or explain how the cited provisions applied to each plaintiff.

Instead, it focused on the second defendant’s status as guardian under the Settlement Deed and the fact that he had not obtained court permission before executing the sale.

It also observed that the asserted family and medical necessities were not supported by satisfactory evidence.

On that basis, it held that the sale deed could not be sustained as against the plaintiffs’ rights.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.