Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. Behera, J.
Rama Chandra Behera and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Babu Behera and Ors. - Respondent
S.A. No. 247 of 1987
Decided On: 22-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents:B. Das, Advocate on behalf of N.C. Pati, Advocate

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 attaining majority.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 8(2) and 8(3) - Sale deeds executed under guardia nship - The appeal concerns the validity of sale deeds executed in favor of the plaintiffs by a minor's father without court permission, which were deemed void by the First Appellate Court - However, the Court finds that the sale deeds are voidable rather than void, as established by relevant case law. (Paras 16-18)

(B) Legal Effect of Sale Deeds - The court determines that until the minor exercises the option to void the sale deeds within the specified time frame, the documents remain valid and binding. The plaintiffs have maintained possession based on these documents, and the defendant did not file for cancellation. (Paras 16-18)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs acquired the suit properties through sale deeds from the minor defendant, which were executed by the defendant's father. There was a dispute regarding whether these transactions were legally valid due to the lack of permission from a competent court at the time of the sales. The plaintiffs asserted ownership and continued to possess the properties, while the minor defendant contested the sales, claiming they were fraudulent and invalid. (Paras 3-10)

Findings of Court:
The trial court favored the plaintiffs, confirming their ownership and possession, while the First Appellate Court found the transactions void. However, the High Court concluded that the sale deeds were voidable and valid until challenged by the minor. (Para 18)

Issues: The main legal questions were whether the transfer was legal under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, whether the transactions were void or voidable, and the ramifications of the minor's inaction in challenging the validity of the sales. (Paras 12-16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court elucidated that sales executed by a natural guardian without required court consent are voidable. The minor must act within three years of reaching majority to nullify such sales, and the plaintiffs' ownership positions remain intact until a proper challenge is presented. (Paras 16-18)

Result: The Second Appeal is allowed; the First Appellate Court's decision is set aside, and the Trial Court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs is confirmed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. issues framed in the trial regarding ownership and possession. (Para 6 , 9)
3. appellate court's reasoning for reversing trial court's decision. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal assessment of sale deeds concerning minor's property. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. conclusion and confirmation of trial court judgment. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants of this Second Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I.

The respondent No.1 of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and he was the sole appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I.

The respondent Nos.2 to 4 of this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this Second Appeal) before the Trial Court vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

4. According to the plaintiffs' case, the suit properties were originally belonged to the father of defendant No.1 i.e. Jagannath Behera. That Jagannath Behera (father of defendant No.1) sold the suit properties to the defendant No.4 (Laskhaman Biswal) along with father of the defendant No.5 (Rama Biswal). After purchasing the same, the defendant No.4 and the father of defendant No.5 mutated the suit properties into their names and after mutation, separate R.o.Rs. of the suit properties were prepared jointly in their names and they were paying rent for the same.

Defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 sold the suit properties to the defendant No.1 on dated 16.02.1962 and the sale deed dated 16.02.1962 was executed in the name of his minor son i.e. defendant No.2 (Babu Behera) through the guardianship of defendant No.1, accordingly, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit properties from the defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 on dated 16.02.1962 in the name of his minor son i.e. defendant No.2 (Babu Behera). Therefore, the defendant No.1 was the real owner of the suit properties, though the same was purchased by the defendant No.1 in the name of his minor son i.e. Babu Behera (defendant No.2). Because, the entire consideration amount of the sale deed dated 16.02.1962 was paid by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 and since the date of purchase i.e. since 16.02.1962, the defendant No.1 had become the exclusive owner over the suit properties and he was possessing the same exclusively.

But, subsequent thereto, the defendant No.1 sold Lot No.1 of the suit properties to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on dated 26.06.1962 and that registered sale deed dated 26.06.1962 in respect of the Lot No.1 suit properties was executed by the minor defendant No.2 through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 and after selling Lot No.1 suit properties to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 through the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.06.1962, the possession thereof was delivered to the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and since then plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were in possession over Lot No.1 of the suit properties being the owners thereof.

Thereafter, the defendant No.2 sold Lot No.2 suit properties through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 to the defendant No.3 by executing and registering sale deed on dated 25.07.1964 and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 were the owners of Lot No.1 suit properties and defendant No.3 was the owner of Lot No.2 suit properties.

Thereafter, the defendant No.3 sold th