Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VIMALA, J.
Selvam & Others
Versus
Mangaiyarkarasi
Second Appeal No. 1057 of 2001
Decided On: 24-01-2013
Result : Second appeal allowed.
The judgment pertains to a dispute over the sale of property belonging to minors, with the core issues revolving around the validity of the sale, the nature of the property, and the procedural requirements under Hindu law. The court examined whether the sale was conducted with the necessary court permission, especially considering the property was purchased in the name of the minors' mother and children, and whether the transaction was for legal necessity or benami in nature.
The court held that, in the absence of clear proof or intent to benefit the minors, the purchase was not a benami transaction but rather a purchase made for the benefit of the minors and their mother. However, the sale executed by the mother without prior court permission was invalid, as the law mandates obtaining such permission before selling a minor’s property. The sale was deemed voidable and not automatically void, but since the guardian failed to obtain court approval, the sale was considered invalid.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s findings, ruling that the property was joint family property and that the sale was for a legal necessity, thus valid without court approval. The higher court, however, found that the property was the separate property of the minors and that the sale was not for legal necessity. Consequently, the sale was invalid, and the minors’ rights to their share of the property were upheld.
The court emphasized that a guardian’s failure to obtain prior court permission renders the transaction voidable, and such transactions can be challenged by the minors upon attaining majority. It also clarified that attestation by a father does not automatically confer validity on the sale if the sale was executed by the mother without court approval. The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions protecting minors’ property rights and affirms that violations render such transactions invalid or voidable.
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.
The suit was filed informa pauperis in O.P.44 of 1991 by the father (on behalf of his three minor sons) and the major son seeking declaration that the sale deed, dated 22.07.1981, will not bind the plaintiffs 4/5th share and for consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed. The defendant preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.54 of 1997. During the pendency of the first appeal, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were declared, as majors, as per order dated 22.02.1999 in I.A.No.185 of 1997. The appeal was allowed. Challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, (dismissing the suit) the second appeal was filed, raising the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether the sale of property of minors without prior permission of the District Court is valid?
(ii) Whether the mother of the minors is competent to sell property of the minor children?
(iii) Whether attestation by the father amounts to conveyance?
(iv) Whether the question of legal necessity is relevant in the case of sale of minor's property?
(v) Whether a woman can act as Kartha or Manager of a joint Hindu family?"
2. Brief facts:
The suit property consists of two items situated at Pallavaraya natham, Panruti Sub Registry, Cuddalore Taluk.
(i) R.S.No.245/3 - A.c. 1.11
(ii)R.S.No.266/2 - A.c.0.89
2.1. The plaintiff's father Ranganathan purchased the suit property on 12.06.1980, for a sum of Rs.16,000/- in the name of his wife and his four sons, the plaintiffs. Jayalakshmi sold the property for a sum of Rs.17,555/-in the capacity as guardian for her four sons also. The recitals in the sale deed are false. Permission of the court was not obtained to sell the property. The plaintiffs issued notice on 05.11.1990 for which the defendants did not send any reply. The sale deed would confer title only to the extent of share of Jayalakshmi. The plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5th share of the suit property, along with past and future mesne profits.
3. The plaintiffs claim was resisted by the defendant on the following contentions:-
(i) Purchase of the suit property by Ranganathan in the name of his wife and sons is a benami purchase.
(ii) The sale of the said property was for the purpose of family expenses and educational expenses of minor sons. It is only Ranganatha Padayachi who sold the property and not his wife.
(iii) Suit is barred by limitation.
(iv) The claim of past and future mesne profits are high.
4. The issues framed and the corresponding findings rendered by the trial court are as detailed below:-
(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Even though the first plaintiff has attained majority, the other plaintiffs were minors on the date of filing of the suit and they are entitled to file the suit within three years after the cessation of minority as per section 7 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation.
(2) and (3) Whether the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiffs by Ranganatha Padayachi?
Whether the sale deed dated 22.07.1981 has to be set aside, so far as the plaintiffs 4/5th share?
It was contended by the defendant that
(a) The suit property was purchased benami by Ranganathan
(b) The suit property was purchased from out of the separate money of Ranganathan;
Therefore, the suit property is the separate property of Ranganatha Padayachi or it is the joint family property belonging to the Ranganathan and the plaintiffs, is the branching issue.
5. The trial court also took note of the omission in the evidence of the defendant where he did not say either that the suit property was purchased from out of the joint family income or it was purchased for the benefit of the members of the joint family. Referring to the evidence of Ranganatha Padayachi, wherein he himself stated that the suit property was purchased from out of his separate income and also considering that there was not even a suggestion that the suit property was purchased from ou
SupremeToday
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
