Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 1068
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
SAROJ – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SUNDER SINGH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10582 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.27949 of 2012)
Decided On : 25-11-2013
IMPORTANT PONT
When father dies leaving behind only minor daughters and their mother, their shares gets defined and the mother cannot sell share of the minors without permission of court.
Headnote:(a) Hindu Law - Where the father dies leaving behind only minor daughters and their mother as natural guardian, the share of the daughters became definite - Question of family partition retaining the character of joint Hindu Family property does not exist. (Para 13)
(b) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8(3) - Father dying leaving behind three minor daughters and their mother - Each shared ¼ portion of the property and it was recorded in mutation register as well - Section 8(3) gets attracted and Mother could not sell the property of daughters without permission of the court. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Mother of the appellant sold the suit property (ancestral property) after death of her husband. Appellant was a minor at that time.
On attaining majority, appellant and her two sisters challenged the sale deed on the ground that she had a share in the suit property as a minor and minor's property cannot be sold without court's permission.
The challenge and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the suit property was sold for proper maintenance of the children.
Finding of the Court:
Mother could not have sold the suit property without permission of court in terms of section 8(3), HAMA Act.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 313 of 2009. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment held that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed the order of the trial court which dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant along with her two sisters (original plaintiffs) happened to be the daughters of respondent No.2(original defendant No.2). According to the appellant, she and her two sisters were minors when their father Khilluram expired. Thereafter, their mother i.e. second respondent, of course the guardian, sold out the suit property which belonged to their father by executing a sale deed on 9th December, 1988. According to the appellant, since the suit property belonged to their father the daughters had shares in the property, the mother could not have sold the suit property to the first respondent. The appellant, therefore, with two other sisters (proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein) preferred Civil Suit No.6 of 2007 for declaration of the sale deed dated 9th December, 1988 as null and void in respect of the suit land. The appellant pleaded that the second respondent as the mother of the appellant and two other sisters has no right or authority to sell the suit land, as their shares are part of it. The sale of minors’ property cannot be done without obtaining the prior permission of the Court.
3. The second respondent in her written statement stated that the appellant and two others were her minor daughters. She is the wife of Khilluram and the equal shares of the disputed land are registered in the name of the appellant and two daughters. She had sold the entire disputed land including the shares of the daughters vide sale deed dated 1st December, 1988 which was registered on 9th December, 1988. The consideration amount received out of the said sale was spent to fulfill the requirements of the daughters- i.e. appellant and proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.
4. In a separate written statement the first respondent accepted that the disputed land situated in village Ujjaili, Tehsil-Kot Kasim is the ancestral property of Khilluram. After the death of Khilluram the said suit land was devolved on appellant, two other sisters and the second respondent jointly in equal shares. The appellant and the two other daughters were minor and their mother i.e. second respondent herein was the natural guardian. The agricultural work was done jointly by the appellant, two other daughters and the second respondent. It is stated that the suit land was sold for proper maintenance of the minor daughters.
5. On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellant herein and two other sisters, Saroj (PW-1), Chandra Kanat (PW-2) and Pop Singh (PW-3) were examined. They placed on record the documents duly exhibited as Exh.1 to 19. The respondents examined Sunder Singh (DW-1), Ramphal (DW-2) and Ramotar (DW-3) and placed on record documents duly exhibited as A-1 to A- 10.
6. Learned Additional District Judge framed 8 issues. The issue Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant herein:
Issue No.7 reads as follows:
“7. Whether the registered sale-deeds of the land Survey No.5 and 6 made by the Defendant No.2 to different parties has been done with the motive to cause harm and usurp this land of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, ownership and rights which is wrong and contrary to the established provisions of law, and the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled to challenge these two sale-deeds against their interests and rights.”
The said issue was decided against the
