The court emphasized the importance of obtaining permission from the Court before transferring the property belonging to a minor, as required by Section 8(1) and (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

The Court has heard learned counsel for the appellants on admission.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that both the courts below have committed an error in misinterpreting the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 inasmuch as a deed executed by a minor was not void and this aspect has not been considered by the two courts. It was also urged that the lower appellate Court has committed manifest error by not framing the points of determination while passing the judgment and as such the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court was bad in the eyes of law. It was also urged that the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, which was filed on behalf of the minor, through his next friend (Tau) ignoring that such a suit was not maintainable as the natural guardian of the minor was the mother and she was deliberately impleaded as a defendant in the suit, which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

3. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, certain facts may be noted in order to put the submission in a correct perspective.

4. A suit for cancellation of a sale-deed was filed by Ram Jeevan son of Pirthi through his next friend (Uncle) seeking cancellation of the sale-deed in respect of agricultural land total measuring 2.46 hectares bearing Plots No.65/1 and 215, situated in Village Karauta, Pargana Kundari, Tehsil Biswan, District Sitapur. The suit was filed on two grounds that the defendant No.2 in the suit namely Smt. Loharki was the mother of the plaintiff, who under undue influence of the defendant No.1 got executed a sale-deed in respect of the agricultural property without seeking permission of the Court as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and without paying any sale consideration. The defendant No.1, who is the appellant before this Court contested the suit and stated that the sale-deed in his favour was not void. He had got the same executed since the minor children were in a need of money and, therefore, their natural guardian namely Smt. Loharki had received full consideration and on account of genuine need of the minor the sale-deed was executed in his favour. He further stated that he had got his name duly mutated in the revenue records and is in possession of the same. He further took a defence that the suit was collusive since the suit for cancellation was filed by the minor through his next friend (Tau) whereas his natural guardian was his mother and apparently she was impleaded as defendant in the above suit, who did not appear to contest the suit.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed five issues whereas the Issue No.1 was most relevant as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale-deed cancelled.

6. Upon leading the evidence, the trial court found that the sale-deed was without any consideration and that there was no permission taken from the Court of law for the execution of such sale-deed, consequently, it decreed the suit by means of the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2013. The defendant preferred a Regular Civil Appeal No.22/2013 before the A.D.J.-III, Sitapur, who also after hearing the parties, by means of its judgment dated 07.09.2018 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. It is in this backdrop that the present second appeal has been filed.

7. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it would indicate that in terms of Section 8(1) and (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is imperative to obtain a permission of the Court before transferring the property belonging to the minor. In the present case, the facts are not disputed that the property belonged to a minor and that no permission was obtained from any Court for such transfer. Thus, the submission to be considered is whether such a sale-deed at the behest of the mino