A sale deed executed by a minor's guardian without court permission is voidable, permitting the minor to affirm or reject upon reaching majority.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

1. The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kendrapara in RFA No.07 of 2010.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant (Defendant No.1) under Section-96 of the Code in challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara in Title Suit No.126 of 1981 has been dismissed and thereby, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in declaring the right, title and interest of the Respondent No.1(Plaintiff) over the suit land on the strength of the registered sale-deed dated 17.06.1980 (Ext.1) has been confirmed and this Appellant (Defendant No.1) has been held to be having no right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the sale-deed dated 30.08.1973 (Ext.C) standing in his favour.

2. At this stage, it may be stated that the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 who had been arraigned as the Defendant No.2 and the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 i.e. Defendant No.3 had died during the suit. The Respondent No.1, who was the Plaintiff, having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives have come on record as Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(f) and here in this Appeal, Respondent No.1(a), 1(b), 1(e) and 1(f) having appeared, represent the estate and interest of the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff)

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

4. Plaintiffs case is that the Defendant No.9 was a minor when the suit land with other lands in total measuring Ac.4.95 decimals had been purchased by him from one Baidyanath Jena under registered sale-deed dated 30.12.1964. It is stated that the consideration money for said purchase had come from the funds provided by his mother. The Defendant No.9 being a minor, he in that transaction was represented by his father i.e. Defendant No.8. It is stated that Defendant no.9 on 17.06.1980 sold the suit land to the Plaintiff for valuable consideration and pursuant to that had given the delivery of possession of the sold land to the Plaintiff. Accordingly the Plaintiff is said to be in possession of the suit land from said date. On 21.07.1980. When Plaintiff wanted to construct a building over the suit land; surprisingly there came resistance from the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 who threatened to dispossess him from the suit land. The Plaintiff therefore, filed Title suit No. 187 of 1980 seeking permanent injunction against said Defendants in the Court of Munsif, Kendrapara. The Defendant No. 1 in his written statement in the said suit claimed to have purchased the suit land from Defendant No.8 on 30.08.1973. On enquiry that it was known that said sale-deed had been executed by Defendant No.8 as the father guardian of Defendant No.9 without obtaining the required permission from the Competent Court of law as required under Section-8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Thus, it is stated that said sale is illegal and void. It is also stated that there was no payment of consideration under that sale-deed purported to have made in favour of Defendant No.1 and he had never been delivered with the possession of the same. It is also stated that in the year, 1968, when Defendant No.8 had sold Ac.0.33 decimals of land of his minor son i.e. Defendant No.9 to one Digambar Nath Sharma,