Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
NARAYAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
BABASAHEB & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3486 OF 2016 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 15966 OF 2012
Decided On : 05-04-2016
(b) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – Suit by quondam minor to set aside the alienation of his property by his guardian – Governed by Article 60 – Articles 109, 110 or 113 are not attracted – The suit for impeaching transfer of immovable property by the Guardian must be filed within the prescribed period of three years after attaining majority. (Para 27, 29)
(c) Limitation Act, 1963 – Neither confers a right nor an obligation to file a Suit, if no such right exists under the substantive law – The act only provides a period of limitation for filing the Suit. (Para 28)
(d) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 and 109 – Alienation of property by mother – Article 60 applies – Article 109 governs alienation by father – Merely because Article 60 provides lesser period of limitation, Article 109 could not be applied to alleviate hardship to plaintiff. (Para 30)
(e) Interpretation if statute – In interpreting a provision, inconvenience and hardship to a person will not be the decisive factors – “Dulo lex sed lex” meaning law is hard but it is law and there cannot be any departure from the words of the law. (Para 30)
(f) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 7 – Only karta or manager of joint family governed by Mithakshara law deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other members of family – Instantly, plaintiff no. 2 still a minor at the time of filing suit in 1989 – Plaintiffs 3 to 5, being married daughters, not managers of the family – Plaintiff no. 1 aged 20 years on date of filing suit – Thus he filed suit within three years of attaining majority – Article 60 – Held, suit not barred by limitation. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this appeal is whether the Suit filed in the year 1989 with regard to the sale deed dated January 20, 1982 was within limitation.
The plaintiff/respondents 1 to 5 filed Reg. Civil Suit No.12 of 1989 against the 1st defendant (appellant herein) and 2nd defendant (respondent No. 6). The Suit was filed seeking the relief of partition and for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20.01.1982 and 28.11.1988 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are not binding and to set aside the same and also for recovery of possession of the Suit schedule property and for mesne profits.
The trial court decreed the Suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of their share.
This was confirmed in first as well as in second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The limitation to file the present Suit is governed by Article 60 of the Act and the limitation is 3 years from the date of attaining majority.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The natural guardian’s authority to act for a minor and requirement of court permission for transfer of property by sale, making such sale voidable if not for legal necessity. (!) (!) (!) - Suit by a quondam minor to set aside a guardian’s alienation is governed by Article 60, with a three-year limitation from attaining majority; Articles 109, 110, or 113 are not applicable to this scenario. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 7 of the Limitation Act requires counting when multiple plaintiffs can discharge jointly; if a discharge cannot be given without some plaintiff, time may run against all or none depending on disability. In this case, the date of attainment of majority and the age/status of plaintiffs determined the limitation period under Article 60. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The suit filed in 1989 was well within three years from the date of attaining majority for the minor plaintiffs, given their ages and status at filing. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 5.10.2011 in Second Appeal No.213 of 2004 wherein and whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
3. This Court, while issuing notice on 27th April, 2012, has passed the following order:
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice returnable in ten weeks limited to the question as to whether the Suit filed in the year 1989 with regard to the sale deed dated January 20, 1982 was within limitation.
Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process.
In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property which is subject matter of the sale deed dated January 20, 1982.”
4. In the light of the order passed by this Court on 27.04.2012, we are confining ourselves only to the question as to whether the Suit filed in the year 1989 in respect of a sale deed dt. 20.01.1982 is well within limitation or barred by limitation.
5. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant in the Suit. Respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and the 6th respondent is defendant no.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as they are before the trial Court.
6. The brief facts which are necessary for proper appreciation of the dispute between the parties in nutshell are as follows:
The plaintiff/respondents 1 to 5 filed Reg. Civil Suit No.12 of 1989 against the 1st defendant (appellant herein) and 2nd defendant (respondent No. 6). The Suit was filed seeking the relief of partition and for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20.01.1982 and 28.11.1988 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are not binding and to set aside the same and also for recovery of possession of the Suit schedule property and for mesne profits.
7. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the real brothers and the 2nd plaintiff, being minor, is under the guardianship of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 are the real sisters, whereas defendant No.2 is their mother and the defendant No.1 is the purchaser in whose favour defendant No.2 alleged to have executed the sale deeds dated 20.01.1982 and 28.11.1988 which are sought to be set aside and defendant No.3 is another sister who is married about 12 years back and whose whereabouts are not known to the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant is later impleaded.
8. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that their father is the original owner of the Suit schedule property which is ancestral property. He died in the year 1972 leaving behind him his two sons, four daughters and the widow i.e. the 2nd defendant. After the death of their father, the 2nd defendant, who is alleged to be a person of loose character, left the matrimonial home and married one Begaji. The father of the plaintiffs, during his lifetime, performed the marriage of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and the marriage of the 5th plaintiff was performed by the1st plaintiff. The 2nd defendant, without there being any legal necessity, has alienated the property for a meager amount of Rs.6,000/-when the surrounding lands were fetching an amount of Rs.15,000/-. At the time of execution of the second sale deed, though the 1st plaintiff was major, he was shown as minor. It is stated that as the 2nd defendant was never taking care of them at any point of time and staying with some other person, she cannot be termed as a guardian. The 1st defendant, without paying any consideration, in active connivance with the 2nd defendant, has got the sale deed registered with an intention to defraud the interest of the minors. It is further pleaded that as on the date of execution of the second sale deed, the land fetches an amount of Rs.20,000/-per acre, apart from that as the 1st defendant is in possession of the property, they are e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
