Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Murugan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1782 of 2019, S.L.P. (C) No. 21091 of 2010
Decided On : 25-02-2019
(1999) 9 SCC 446; (2016) 6 SCC 725 – Relied upon
(b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 19 and 21 r/w Section 119, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Vested right and contingent right – Held, in terms of the Will absolute right bequeathed in favour of Palanivel became vested in him upon the death of Petha Gounder. (Para 12)
(c) Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8 – Void and voidable sale deed – Sale deed in violation of section 8(2) – Without permission of court and without legal necessity – Not void but voidable at the instance of the minor – Held, minor or anybody on his behalf cannot claim possession without seeking setting aside of the voidable sale deed. (Para 20)
(2001) 6 SCC 534; (2001) 6 SCC 163; (2002) 1 SCC 178; (2004) 8 SCC 785 – Relied upon
(d) Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8 – A voidable sale deed is valid against whole world till avoided – A voidable document has to be actually set aside before taking its legal effect. (Para 24, 28)
(1973) 2 SCC 535; (2001) 6 SCC 163 – Relied upon
(e) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – Providing for a limitation of a suit – Suit to set aside transfer of property made by guardian of a ward also contemplated – Sale deed by natural guardian is voidable while sale deed by de-facto guardian is void – Section 11, Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – In absence of repudiation of sale deed on behalf of minor, sale deed would not become void. (Para 29, 30, 31, 34)
(1991) 3 SCC 20; (2002) 1 SCC 178 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The suit property belongs to one Petha Gounder. Petha Gounder had two sons namely Kannan and Balaraman and three daughters. Sengani Ammal was wife of Petha Gounder. On 17.05.1971 Petha Gounder executed a Will bequeathing life interest to his sons Kannan and Balaraman and thereafter to the two male heirs of his both the sons, who were to take the property absolutely. Will further stipulated that in event, there is no male heir to one of his sons, the male heirs of other son will take the property. Petha Gounder died on 28.11.1971 leaving behind his wife, two sons Balaraman and Kannan and three daughters. Petha Gounder’s wife Sengani Ammal died on 02.02.1982. Balaraman had one son namely Palanivel.
Balaraman on his behalf as well as on behalf of his minor son had sold Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties by registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.1981. Balaraman also sold Item No. 6 and a portion of Item No. 7 by two Sale Deeds dated 30.03.1981 and 31.03.1981 in favour of the first defendant. Balaraman had sold Item No. 6 in favour of the second defendant by registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1982. Balaraman died in 1983 and Kannan died on 02.12.1984. Balaraman’s wife was Lakshmi. The plaintiffs are sons of Kannan. Palanivel, the son of Balaraman died on 11.02.1986 while still a minor. Palanivel’s mother Lakshmi Ammal executed a registered Release Deed dated 24.03.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration. The plaintiffs filed suit.
Trial court decreed the suit.
The Principal District Judge allowed the appeal dismissing the suit.
High Court dismissed the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The two appellate courts have rightly held that the Article 60 applies to the instant suit and therefore it was barred by limitation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The right to receive at the proper time, in the context of property law and succession, refers to the vested interest that a beneficiary or heir acquires upon the occurrence of a specific event, such as the death of the testator or the completion of a condition stipulated in a will or testamentary document. This right becomes vested in the legatee or heir at the moment the event occurs, and it passes to their representatives if they die before receiving it. The right is considered to be vested in interest from the date of the testator's death, provided the terms of the will or legal provisions specify that the interest is to become vested upon that event (!) (!) .
In the context of a bequest, when the terms of the will specify that the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession but is to receive the property at a future time, the right to receive the property at that future time is deemed to be vested in interest upon the testator’s death, unless the will indicates otherwise (!) (!) . This means that the beneficiary’s right to the property is secured from that moment, even if actual possession or enjoyment is postponed until a later date.
Therefore, the right to receive at the proper time is a legal interest that vests upon the occurrence of the specified event (such as the testator's death), and it confers a vested interest in the property or legacy, which can be transferred, claimed, or enforced by the beneficiary or their legal representatives at the appropriate time as determined by the terms of the will or relevant law.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are:-
2.1 The suit property belongs to one Petha Gounder. Petha Gounder had two sons namely Kannan and Balaraman and three daughters. Sengani Ammal was wife of Petha Gounder. On 17.05.1971 Petha Gounder executed a Will bequeathing life interest to his sons Kannan and Balaraman and thereafter to the two male heirs of his both the sons, who were to take the property absolutely. Will further stipulated that in event, there is no male heir to one of his sons, the male heirs of other son will take the property. Petha Gounder died on 28.11.1971 leaving behind his wife, two sons Balaraman and Kannan and three daughters. Petha Gounder’s wife Sengani Ammal died on 02.02.1982. Balaraman had one son namely Palanivel.
2.2 Balaraman on his behalf as well as on behalf of his minor son had sold Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties by registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.1981. Balaraman also sold Item No. 6 and a portion of Item No. 7 by two Sale Deeds dated 30.03.1981 and 31.03.1981 in favour of the first defendant. Balaraman had sold Item No. 6 in favour of the second defendant by registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1982. Balaraman died in 1983 and Kannan died on 02.12.1984. Balaraman’s wife was Lakshmi. The plaintiffs are sons of Kannan. Palanivel, the son of Balaraman died on 11.02.1986 while still a minor. Palanivel’s mother Lakshmi Ammal executed a registered Release Deed dated 24.03.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration. The plaintiffs filed suit No. 229 of 1992 praying for following reliefs:-
“VI. The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properties.
(b) Direct the Defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties failing which order delivery of possession through process of court.
(c) Direct the Defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
(d) Grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2.3 The plaintiffs’ case in the plaint was that Balaraman had no authority to execute Sale Deed on behalf of his minor son Palanivel and the Sale Deeds executed by Balaraman were void. The plaintiffs being sons of Kannan are entitled for declaration and possession of the properties from the defendants. It 3 was further pleaded that validity of the Will dated 17.05.1971 has been upheld by the Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore in O.S. No. 447 of 1973.
2.4 The defendant filed written statement. The defendant’s case was that Balaraman, in order to discharge his debts and for family necessity executed sale deed for himself and on behalf of his minor son on 15.12.1981. The sale deed binds the minor Palanivel. The release deed executed by Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.1986 will confer no right to the plaintiffs. The suit is barred by limitation since the suit has not been filed within 03 years from the date of death of Palanivel i.e. 11.02.1986. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The defendants are not in illegal possession. The defendants are bona-fide purchasers for value. The plaintiffs cannot file suit for declaration without praying for setting aside the sale deeds.
2.5 The trial court framed ten issues. Issue No. 7 was “Whether the suit is barred by limitation?.” Issue No. 8 was “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for declaration of title in respect of suit properties?.” Issue No. 9 was “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for recovery of possession?.” The trial court while deciding Issue No. 7 held that suit is not barred by limitation. Trial court held that plaintiff having filed the suit as reversioner, Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply. As per Article 65, period for limitation is 12 ye
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
