Back
AIR 1980 Mad 207
Sathiadev
Sundaramoorthy And Anr.
Versus
Shanmugha Nadar And Ors.
Decided on: 8/1/1980
.
SUCCESSION ACT - WILL - LEGACY - VESTING OF INTEREST - GUARDIANSHIP - SALE OF MINOR'S PROPERTY - RATIFICATION - ESTOPPEL - PARTITION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, appellants, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties and for recovery of past and future profits. They claimed that the properties belonged to their maternal grandmother, who executed a registered Will bequeathing the properties to her grandsons and appointing their mother as guardian. The first plaintiff attained majority in May 1965, and the second plaintiff was still a minor. The defendants claimed that they had purchased items 6 and 7 in the schedule from the plaintiffs' mother and guardian under a sale deed dated 27-7-1960, and that the first plaintiff had received his share of Rs. 700 on 30-3-1966 and had handed over a receipt, but had still filed the suit challenging the alienation made on his behalf. The lower courts dismissed the suit claim in respect of items 6 and 7.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the second plaintiff had not acquired any interest in the suit properties under the Will since he was not born on the date of the death of the testatrix. The court also held that the mother of the plaintiffs could not have acted as their guardian and conveyed any interests in the suit properties under the sale deed, as the father was alive and he was the only person who could deal with the properties of a minor. The court further held that the first plaintiff's receipt of Rs. 700 under the sale deed did not constitute a ratification of the sale, as the sale was void and not voidable. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of one-third share to which the first plaintiff alone was entitled in respect of items 6 and 7.
Issues: 1. Whether the second plaintiff acquired any interest in the suit properties under the Will? 2. Whether the mother of the plaintiffs could have acted as their guardian and conveyed any interests in the suit properties under the sale deed? 3. Whether the first plaintiff's receipt of Rs. 700 under the sale deed constituted a ratification of the sale?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the second plaintiff had not acquired any interest in the suit properties under the Will since he was not born on the date of the death of the testatrix. The court relied on the rule that the normal rule is that the date of death of the testator crystallises the class of legatees and those who come within the class and are capable of taking on that date, obtain the benefit. 2. The court held that the mother of the plaintiffs could not have acted as their guardian and conveyed any interests in the suit properties under the sale deed, as the father was alive and he was the only person who could deal with the properties of a minor. The court relied on Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which provides that a de facto guardian cannot dispose or deal with the property of a Hindu minor after the commencement of the Act except by the natural guardian under Section 8 and that too when the father is alive, such a sale deed is a void transaction. 3. The court held that the first plaintiff's receipt of Rs. 700 under the sale deed did not constitute a ratification of the sale, as the sale was void and not voidable. The court relied on the principle that a void transaction cannot be ratified.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of one-third share to which the first plaintiff alone was entitled in respect of items 6 and 7.
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of their half share in A schedule properties and for recovery of past and future profits. In the plaint, they claim that the properties mentioned in A sch. originally belonged to Subbammal, maternal grandmother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 7 and 9 and she executed a registered Will on 18-5-1948 bequeathing the properties to her grandsons and appointing their mother as guardian and therefore each one of them secured one fourth share in the suit properties. The first plaintiff attained majority in May 1965 and the second plaintiff is still a minor. It is on attaining majority, the first plaintiff realised that the suit properties are in the possession of defendants 1 to 6 and 8, and therefore, the suit has been laid for the reliefs prayed for therein.
2. Fifth defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 6 and 8, claiming that they have purchased items 6 and 7 in A schedule for Rs. 5000 from defendants 7 and 9, and plaintiffs 1 and 2 represented by their mother and guardian B under sale deed dated 27-7-1960, and all the debts mentioned in the sale deed have been discharged. A sum of Rs. 1400 was reserved for being paid to plaintiffs 1 and 2 on their attaining majority. The first plaintiff received his share of Rs. 700 on 30-3-1966 and handed over a receipt, but in spite of it, he had filed the present suit, on 6-4-1966 challenging the alienation made on his behalf. Subbammal died in 1950 within two years of the execution of the registered Will. Second plaintiff was born several years after her death and therefore he is not entitled to any properties as a legatee under the Will. As for the first plaintiff, he having received his share of Rs. 700 on 30-3-1966 has also ratified the sale and hence he cannot file a suit for partition of his share. So far as items 1 to 5 of plaintiff A schedule is concerned, a preliminary decree was passed in respect of one third share of plaintiff No. 1, whereas the claim of the second plaintiff was dismissed. Regarding items 6 and 7 with, which defendants 5, 6 and 8 are concerned, the suit claim was dismissed. Defend ants 1 to 4 had remained ex Parte in the proceedings.
3. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court which has resulted in the filing of the present second appeal in so far as the reliefs claimed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 bad not been acceded to by the courts below.
4. Mr. T. R. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that (1) under Ex. B. 1 registered will dated 13-5-1948, the properties belonging to the grandmother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 7 and 9 were bequeathed to a class of persons, who would come within the ambit of explanation to S. 111 of the Succession Act and that (2) the vendees under Ex. B. 2 cannot challenge the right of the second plaintiff to the properties when they have taken the sale deed from him as well; that (3) if it is held that the second plaintiff had not acquired any rights in the property pursuant to Ex. B. 1, when under Ex. B. 2, each one of the sharers had claimed to have conveyed their share, the residual one fourth share is yet to be conveyed by the other three sharers; that (4) in view of S. 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 (Act 32 of 1956) the plaintiffs mother cannot sell immoveable properties, when the father is alive, that (5) merely because first plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 700 under Ex. B. 5, dated 30-3-1966, it cannot constitute a ratification of a non est transaction or a void sale under Ex. B 2 of his share of the properties, and that (6) facts and circumstances of this case do not enable respondents herein to plead the doctrine of election, estoppel, approbation and reprobation and the plaintiff are entitled to have the relief of partition for their one half share in the properties.
5. Mr. Parasaran, learned counsel for the respon
AI
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
