A sale deed executed by a guardian during a ward's minority is voidable, and failure to challenge it within the limitation period bars any claims against it.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Ms. Sonal Pandey learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.5 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing counsel. Sri J.P. Shukla learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of caveator-respondent no.4. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.9.

3. Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C) dated 12.04.2024 whereby two revisions which were connected have been decided by the said common order and the revisions have been allowed setting aside the order dated 16.06.2009 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C.) and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Rule 109A of the Consolidation of Holding Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules).

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, certain facts are being noticed first.

5. The case of the petitioners was that Ram Nayan-petitioner no.1 and Mitthulal (father of the petitioner no.2 to 4) were the registered owners of the property-in-question bearing old plot no.2362 M (new plot no.585Ka). The grandfather of the petitioner no.1 and his brother Mitthulal, namely Rashi, executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Nayan and Mitthulal in the year, 1968.

6. During the minority of Ram Nayan and Mitthulal, their father and natural guardian namely Daya Ram sold the said property by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.08.1969 in favour of the private respondent no.4-Raj Bahadur, respondent no.5-Babulal and Ram Aasrey (father and predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent nos.6 to 8).

7. The record reflects that the vendees of the sale deed of 1969 got their names mutated by the order passed by the C.O dated 28.02.1974. This order of 1974 was never challenged nor the sale deed dated 27.08.1969 was ever assailed, however, after the denotification of the village on 23.07.1988 under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 the consolidation operation came to an end. Significantly, the petitioner no.1-Ram Nayan had attained the age of majority in the year 1980 itself.

8. Be that as it may, it was stated by the petitioner no.1-Ram Nayan and his brother Mitthulal that only on 30.05.2003 when there was a scuffle between the families of the petitioners and the private respondents that they became aware of the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by their father.

9. Having obtained the certified copies, the present petitioner filed a time barred appeal before the S.O.C. It had been the case of the petitioners that they were never aware of the sale deed and since no permission was taken from the District Judge as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 hence, the sale deed in favour of private respondents was invalid. Moreover, it was also stated that the said land-in-question was a grove land and in such circumstances, the order of mutation passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 28.02.1974 was liable to be set aside.

10. Upon hearing the parties, the S.O.C by means of his order dated 16.06.2009 took note of the fact since the sale deed was executed during the minority of the petitioner and his brother and they did not have any notice thereof coupled with the fact even though the appeal was filed after 29 years and the village had been denotified in terms of Section 52(1) of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 hence, the case for condonation of delay was made out as it was further held that in case, if the indulgence is not granted to the petitioner then their rights shall be foreclosed for all times to come and Section 49 of the U.P. CH Act would also come into operation, hence it found that in order to do substantial justice the order