HERAT, J.—Sinna Veloo v. Messrs Lipton Ltd.
1963Present: Sansoni, J., and L. B. de Silva, J.A. D. NORIS APPUBAMY, Appellant, and NERIS SINGHO
and another, Respondents
S. C. 619/60—D. G. Panadura, 7058
Minors—Transfer of immovable property by minor—Character of transferee's title.
A deed of transfer of immovable property executed by a minor is voidableand not void.
1 [1929) 31_N. L. B. 168.
SAITS ONI, J.—Nor is Appuhamy v. Neeris Singho
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Panadura.
A. C. Oooneratne. with N. S. A. Goonetilleke and T. H. Gunaratne,for the Plaintiff-Appellant,
No appearance for the Defendants-Respondents.
May 15, 1963. Sansoot, J.—
The plaintiff brought this action to be declared entitled to lot G ofa land called Mahawatta described in the plaint. It has been provedthat under a final decree in a partition action two persons, Karunaratneand Karunasena, became the owners of this land. They transferredtheir respective shares to the plaintiff by two deeds, in 1956 and 1958respectively, when they were both minors. There are two defendantsto the action, of whom the 2nd defendant is the father of the twominors while the 1st defendant is a tenant under him.
The learned District Judge has held that the two deeds executed bythe minors in favour of the plaintiff are void in spite of clear decisionsof this Court which have held that a deed executed by a minor is void-able and not void. The learned District Judge seems to have thoughtthat there was some conflict between those decisions and another decision,which held that a guardian of a minor cannot alienate a minor’s propertywithout the sanction of the Court. . There is no conflict at all, and thelearned District Judge should have held that until the minors took stepsand had the deeds executed by them set aside they were valid and con-ferred title on the plaintiff. The learned District Judge also seems tohave thought that in the absence of express ratification by the minorsafter they had executed the deeds, no title passed to the plaintiff. Thatagain is an unsound view.
It is difficult to understand what the learned District Judge meantwhen he answered the issue of prescription by holding that the 2nddefendant acquired title by prescription to the land. The 2nd defendant,had admitted that he possessed this land on behalf of his minor sons.There was therefore no question of his acquiring title by prescriptionagainst those sons, and since ten years have not elapsed since the minorstransferred their shares to the plaintiff, no question of prescription asagainst the plaintiff could arise.
We therefore set aside the judgment under appeal and give judgmentfor the plaintiff as prayed for with costs against both defendants, savethat damages will be as agreed.
L. B. de Silva, J.—I agree.
A. D. NORIS APPUHAMY, Appelalnt, and NERIS SINGHO and another, Respondents