Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Joshi, J.
Bharat Deorao Pawar - Appellant
Versus
Shantabai Ashok Pawar - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 990 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 100; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Sec. 8 - The court discussed the applicability of Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding appeals and the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which restrict the natural guardian from selling a minor's property without court permission. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the sale deed executed by Shantabai was voidable as it was not authorized by the court, thus influencing the decision to uphold the rights of the minor daughters and modify the share distribution accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
Bharat filed a suit seeking an injunction against Shantabai and her daughters to prevent interference with his possession of ancestral property, claiming ownership based on a sale deed. Shantabai contested the sale, alleging it was obtained through fraud. Simultaneously, Dipali and Savita sought partition of the property, claiming the sale deed was not binding on them as minors.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed Bharat's suit and decreed the partition suit in favor of Dipali and Savita, recognizing their rights as co-parceners. The appellate court confirmed this decision, emphasizing the lack of legal necessity for the sale and the absence of court permission for the sale of minor's shares.
Issues: Whether the sale deed executed by Shantabai was binding on her and her daughters, and whether the courts below erred in their findings regarding the shares of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was voidable as it was executed without the necessary court permission, thus not binding on the minor daughters. The court also found that Shantabai's claim of fraud was not substantiated due to her failure to testify, leading to the conclusion that the sale deed was binding on her share.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming that Bharat would receive 2/3rd of the property, while Dipali and Savita would each receive 1/6th share from their deceased father's estate, with the rest of the decree remaining unchanged.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. These appeals are filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgments and decree passed in R.C.S. No. 57/2015 dtd. 22/4/2019 and judgment in R.C.A. No. 155/2019 dtd. 21/10/2022 as well as judgment in R.C.S. No. 215/2012 dtd. 24/4/2019 which was confirmed in R.C.A. No. 153/2016 by judgment dtd. 21/10/2022. For the convenience, parties are referred by their names.
2. Bharat filed suit being R.C.S. No. 215/2012 seeking injunction against Savita, Dipali and Shantabai restraining them from interfering into his possession over the suit property being Gut No. 61 admeasuring 2H 82R. Bharat is brother-in-law of Shantabai and paternal uncle of Dipali and Savita. It is the case of the Bharat that the suit property is ancestral property of himself and his real brother deceased Ashok, who died n 18/5/1998. Shantabai is wife of Ashok and Savita and Dipali are their daughters. It is claimed by Bharat that after death of Ashok, suit property was mutated in the name of Bharat and Shantabai to the extent of their half share. It is further claimed that the entire property was in possession of the Bharat. According to him, since the Shantabai was in need of money for maintaining her daughters and also for their marriage, she sold her share in the suit property i.e., 1H 41R land to Bharat and possession was also given at the same time. Bharat on the basis of sale deed claims that he is in possession of entire property as owner. As Shantabai and others threatened him to obstruct his possession, suit came to be filed by Bharat.
3. Shantabai filed written statement and accepted the relationship between them and also about effecting mutation entry bearing no. 1036 after death of Ashok. It is claimed that she was jointly cultivating the suit land with Bharat. It is specifically averred that till January, 2012, she was staying with Bharat and the expenses of marriage and maintenance of daughters was borne by her father. It is alleged that on the pretext of partition of the suit property, she was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office and her signature was obtained on the document. As she had trust and confident in Bharat, without knowing the contents of the same, she signed it.
4. Dipali and Savita filed suit bearing R.C.S. No. 57/2015 seeking partition of the suit property and declaration that sale deed dtd. 28/6/1999 is not binding on them. It is alleged that after death of their father Ashok, Bharat in collusion with Talathi got the land entered in his name and in the name of Shantabai, their mother. It is alleged that sale deed executed by Shantabai on 28/6/1999 is illegal and bogus and the same is executed without their consent and against their interest and hence, the same is not binding on them.
5. Bharat filed written statement and raised objection about the limitation for maintainability of the suit. It is also contended that since the declaration is not sought about the sale deed being illegal, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any share. It is specifically claimed that after the death of Ashok, Shantabai started staying separately with her daughters and that the suit property was mutated in name of Bharat and Shantabai equally. It is further claimed by Bharat that for the purpose of maintenance and marriage of Dipali and Savita, Shantabai was in need of money and by executing the sale deed in question, her share in the suit property was sold to him and since then he is exclusive owner thereof. Defendant No. 2 - Shantabai filed written statement with the allegation that Bharat has obtained sale deed by playing fraud upon her and that she was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office under the pretext of execution of the partition deed.
6. Learned Trial Court by passing common judgment dismissed R.C.S. No. 215/2012 and decreed R.C.S. No. 57/2015 and held that Bharat is entitled for half share in the suit property whereas Shantabai, Dipali and Savita are entitled to receive 1/6 share each from half share receivable by
A natural guardian cannot sell a minor's property without prior court approval, and any such sale is voidable at the minor's instance, reinforcing the protection of minors' rights in property matters....
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
A member of an Aliyasantana family has a pre-existing right to seek partition of family property without needing to cancel a sale deed executed by another family member, provided the alienation was n....
The court affirmed that ancestral property rights are inherent to all coparceners, and sales executed without consent are invalid.
A co-owner can validly sell their share in joint properties, and the sale deed cannot be declared void if it is within the extent of the seller's interest.
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
A co-sharer in ancestral property can only sell their share and legal heirs, including daughters as coparceners, must be included in legal proceedings affecting property rights.
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
