Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2525
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
A. SELVAM, J.
Jeyam
Versus
Minor Rejimoon & Others
SA(MD) No. 125 of 2010 & MP(MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010
Decided on : 19-07-2013.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Arumugam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4, K.N. Thambi, Advocate, R5, No Appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the circumstances under which a mother can act as a natural guardian of minors even during the lifetime of the father, and the principle that a voidable transaction is valid until set aside by a competent court.
Headnote:
Guardianship - Sale of Minor's Property - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Section 8, Limitation Act - Article 60 - The court analyzed the legal provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It interpreted the circumstances under which a mother can act as a natural guardian of minors even during the lifetime of the father. The court also discussed the legal principle that a voidable transaction is valid until set aside by a competent court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought to declare a sale deed invalid and recover possession of the property, alleging that the first defendant, acting as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs, executed a fraudulent sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed the suit. The second defendant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant, acting as the natural guardian, had executed the sale deed for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs. It held that the sale deed was voidable at the instance of the minors and that the third relief sought in the plaint was unwarranted. The court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's judgment.
Issues: The issues included whether the first defendant could act as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs, whether the sale deed was voidable, and the validity of the third relief sought in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first defendant could act as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs and that the sale deed was voidable at the instance of the minors. It also determined that the third relief sought in the plaint was unwarranted.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's judgment.
1. This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2009 passed in Appeal Suit No.50 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, wherein the Judgment and decree dated 24.02.2006 passed in Original Suit No.376 of 2002 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai are reversed.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.376 of 2002 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 13.06.2002 is invalid in law and also for the relief of recovery of possession as well as setting aside of the sale deed in question, wherein the fifth respondent and the present appellant have been shown as defendants 1 and 2 respectively.
3. In the plaint it is averred that the first defendant is the wife of the fourth plaintiff and the remaining plaintiffs are their children. The suit property is originally belonged to one Nesamony Nadar S/o.Kesavan Nadar and he executed a gift deed dated 23.09.1998 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3. The first defendant is now residing at the house of her parents due to some ill feelings between her and fourth plaintiff. The first defendant is owning some properties in Idukki District. The fourth plaintiff has asked her to dispose of the same so as to purchase some property at Pacode Village which is the native place of the fourth plaintiff. The parents of the first defendant have denied the request made by the fourth plaintiff. The elder sister of the first defendant is one Radha and she has been given in marriage to one Kamaraj. The first defendant in collusion with the said Kamaraj and second defendant has created a fraudulent and invalid document dated 13.06.2002 and the same is nothing but void. The first defendant is not competent to represent the minor plaintiffs 1 to 3 as their natural guardian. Under the said circumstances, the present Suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the second defendant, it is averred that the relationship mentioned in the plaint is correct. In the settlement deed the first defendant has been shown as guardian of minors. The first defendant as natural guardian of minors has executed the sale deed in question. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and first defendant are living together, since the fourth plaintiff has deserted them. It is false to aver that the sale deed dated 13.06.2002 is invalid in law. There is no merit in the Suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the Suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.50 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court.
6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the Appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second defendant as appellant.
7. At the time of admitting the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been settled or consideration:
(a) Whether the father is entitled to file a suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by the mother as guardian of the minor children when the minors are in the care and custody of the mother and the sale is for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors and whether such a sale is not bad for want of sanction under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?
(b) Whether the bar under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act does not apply to a sale executed by mother as a guardian in res
