Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Panneerselvam – Appellant
Versus
Mohan – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 738 of 2013
Decided On : 15-03-2024
HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT - MINOR'S PROPERTY SALE - Sections 8(2), 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - The court interpreted Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which stipulate that a natural guardian cannot sell a minor's property without court permission, rendering such a sale voidable. The court also referenced Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act regarding the nature of the relief sought. The court concluded that the sale was voidable due to lack of permission, and the plaintiffs acted within the legal timeframe to challenge the sale, thus restoring the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, minors at the time of a settlement deed executed by their grandfather, sought to declare a subsequent sale of the property by their father as null and void due to lack of court permission. The defendant claimed the sale was valid and for legal necessity, but the plaintiffs argued it was voidable under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale was voidable as it lacked the necessary court permission. The plaintiffs filed their suit within the appropriate timeframe after attaining majority, thus their claim was valid. The appellate court's dismissal of the suit was deemed incorrect.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession? 3. Whether the suit should have sought cancellation of the sale deed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale of a minor's property without court permission is voidable under Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The plaintiffs' timely action to set aside the sale deed was valid, and the nature of the relief sought did not affect their entitlement to relief.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, with the condition that they deposit a specified amount to compensate the defendant for improvements made to the property.
JUDGMENT :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me.
2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No. 223 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram, seeking to declare the sale deed executed by their father/ Krishnamoorthy in favour of the sole respondent as null and void and for consequential recovery of possession.
3. The bare facts necessary for the case are that the suit schedule mentioned property belonged to one Uthirapathy, son of Ramasamy, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. Out of natural love and affection towards the plaintiffs, the said Uthirapathy executed a settlement deed on 01.03.1999 settling the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs are minors on that date, the property was handed over to their natural guardian Krishnamoorthy, the father of the plaintiffs. Having acquired the property, Krishnamoorthy alienated the same in favour of the sole respondent on 27.11.2002. Prior to the alienation of the property, he did not obtain permission of the court. Therefore, treating the sale as voidable, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The defendant pleaded that the suit property originally belonged to Krishnamoorthy and he transferred the same to Uthirapathy, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. When Krishnamoorthy wanted the property to be returned to him, Uthirapathy instead of giving the property in the name of Krishnamoorthy, settled the property in favour of his minor sons, to which Krishnamoorthy was agreeable.
5. The defendant further pleaded that for valuable consideration and for legal necessity, the property was sold to him on 23.09.2002 and after acquiring the same, the defendant had improved upon the property. He claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- to improve the property. In any event, he pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation as Panneer selvam/first plaintiff was aged 15 years on the date of Ex.A2 and Babu/the second plaintiff was aged 13 years.
6. On these pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:
2. Whether the plaintiff's are entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential for recovery of possession as prayed for?
3. To what other relief the plaintiff's are entitled?”
7. On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined viz., PW1/Babu and grandfather Uthirapathy as the settler of the property in favour of the children as PW2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and two other witnesses by name Panneer and Chinnapillai as DW2 & DW3. On the side of the defendant, no documents were marked.
8. After considering the evidence before the court, the learned trial judge decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the said judgment and decree, the purchaser/the sole defendant preferred A.S.No. 38 of 2011. After a detailed analysis of the judgment of the court below, the learned Appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit ought to have been presented for cancellation of the document, but what was sought for was only setting aside the document and therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Against this reversal finding, the present second appeal has been presented before this Court.
9. On 11.07.2013, this court did not admit the appeal, but had ordered notice regarding admission. Thereafter, the matter has been listed before me for admission and for appropriate orders in the appeal.
10. I heard Mrs.R.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi for the appellants and Mr.A.Muthukumar for the respondent.
11. I heard this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
A natural guardian's sale of a minor's property without court permission is voidable, and minors can challenge such sales within a specified timeframe after attaining majority.
Sales of minor's property by guardian without court permission are voidable, requiring action within three years post-majority to avoid limitation issues.
The sale made by a guardian is voidable, but a suit to challenge it must be filed within the limitation period. Failure to challenge intervening sale deeds and non-joinder of necessary parties can le....
A sale deed executed by a minor's guardian without court permission is voidable, permitting the minor to affirm or reject upon reaching majority.
Legal necessity must be proven to invalidate a sale deed executed for minors' benefit, with the burden of proof on defendants to contest authenticity.
The sale deed lacking prior permission/sanction of the Court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, was found void, and the Plaintiffs' failure to prove possession of the suit land led ....
Sales executed by a natural guardian without court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act are voidable, remaining valid until the minor challenges them within three years of attaini....
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
