The sale of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property does not require prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as it is governed by Section 12.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. Plaintiff is in appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that sale of 1/2 share of agricultural land measuring 148 kanal, 17 marlas fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint made by his father defendant No. 7 acting as his natural guardian in favour of defendants No. 1 to 6 vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1973 is illegal, void without consideration, without necessity and is thus not binding qua his rights.

3. He pleaded that the land in question was sold for ridiculous consideration showing inflated amount in sale deed. Apart from the sale being without legal necessity, the same was executed by defendant No. 7 acting as his natural guardian without seeking permission from the competent Court. Sale at the instance of a minor without permission of the Court is voidable. Plaintiff who was born on 21.10.1963 and attained majority on 21.10.1981 was thus, entitled to get the sale annulled by instituting the present suit on 16.09.1983.

4. Defendant No. 7-the father opted not to appear despite service. He was proceeded ex-parte. Suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 6, the vendees in the impugned sale. It was pleaded that in fact the land was owned by defendant No. 7 only. Defendant No. 7 alongwith his brother purchased land measuring 148 kanal, 78 marlas from rehabilitation department in equal share. The sale consideration was paid by defendant No. 7 Bur Singh. Later on through a collusive decree passed in civil suit No. 1258 of 1969, the land in question was transferred in favour of present plaintiff. He was only a benamidar with defendant No. 7 being real owner. It was further pleaded by defendants that the land was sold for legal necessity. An agreement to purchase land measuring 127 Kanal, 2 marlas belonging to Rajbir Singh son of Khajan Singh for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,53,129/- was entered. Money received by defendant No. 7 by executing impugned sale deed was utilized to purchase. Defendants further claimed that suit is time barred. At the time of filing of the suit, plaintiff was more than 21 years of age. Defendants further claimed of having invested huge amount to convert Benjar Kadim, land into a cultivable one and thus in the alternate prayed for recovery of market value alongwith cost and the investment made to improve the land.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, suit was put to trial framing following issues:

“1. Whether Bur Singh father of the present plaintiff was real owner of the suit land and Gurnam Singh was benamidar? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff in any way benefited from the sale, if so, to what effect OPD

3. Whether the suit land had been sold in favour of the defendants without seeking permission of the court, if so, to what effect? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.

7. Whether the present suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD

9. Whether the defendant-vendees have effected any improvement over the suit land, if so, how much and to what amount and to what effect? OPD

10. Relief.”

6. Trial Court decided issue No. 1, 5 and 9 against the defendants. Issue No. 3, 4 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendants. Resultantly, suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court.

7. In appeal preferred by the defendants, Lower Appellate Court recorded that findings recorded by the Trial Court on issue No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 were not challenged and thus confirmed the same. Lower Appellate Court decided issue Nos.4 and 6 in favour of defendants, re-appreciating the evidence. Findings recorded by the Trial Court were reversed and the suit was held to be barred by time.

8. Before this Court, plaintiff alongw