The sale of minor's property was declared void as it lacked necessary court permission, violating the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provisions regarding the guardian's authority to alienate property.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The defendant in the trial Court is the appellant who seeks to challenge the judgment passed by learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No. 42 of 2009/114 of 2014 on 25.07.2016 followed by decree whereby, the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Salepur in Civil Suit No.17 of 2006 on 08.04.2009 was confirmed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed the aforementioned suit seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed No. 816 dated 11.05.2001 is void and that the defendant be permanently restrained to come upon the suit land and interfere in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ case is that the suit land was acquired by them through their mother guardian vide RSD No. 983 dated 03.06.1996 from its lawful owner Madhabananda Khuntia. Subsequently, by another registered sale deed bearing No. 816 dated 11.05.2001, the suit land was alienated by the plaintiffs through their mother guardian in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff No.1, on attaining the age of the majority, along with his minor brother, plaintiff No.2, filed the suit mainly on the ground that the property of the minors had been sold in favour of the defendant without obtaining prior permission of the District Judge in terms of Section 8 (2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and therefore, the sale deed is void. It was further alleged that there was no delivery of possession of suit land to the defendant and consideration money was also not spent for the benefit of the plaintiffs who were minors.

4. The defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement inter alia questioning the maintainability of the suit mainly on the ground that the mother of the plaintiffs namely, Rukmani Khuntia had purchased the suit land out of her own money in the name of her minor sons (plaintiffs) and as such they have no exclusive right and title over the same. Their father Prafulla Kumar Khuntia was cited as witness in the sale deed. The property, being the self-acquired property of Rukmani Khuntia, she was competent to sell the same. She sold the property to the defendant as mother-guardian entirely for the benefit of her minor sons to meet their educational expenses. Further, consideration amount of Rs. 4,500/- was also paid and after purchase, the defendant was delivered possession, whereupon he mutated the property in his favour and has received ROR. He has been possessing the said property since then and is paying rent.

5. On such rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether there is cause of action for filing of the suit?

3. Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the Regd. Sale Deed No. 816 dated 11.05.2001 is a void document?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction?

6. To what other reliefs are the plaintiff entitled?”

6. The plaintiffs examined four witnesses of whom, P.W 4 is the Plaintiff No.1, P.W. 2 is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and P.Ws.1 and 3 are co- villagers. The plaintiffs also proved the documents marked Ext. 1 to 4. On the other hand, the defendant examined 5 witnesses including himself a