Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Nisha Singh (Smt.) v. Virendra Sharma
Civil Revision No. 456 of 2018 (G); Decided on 24.1.2019*
Advocate Appeared:
Sanjeev Jain for applicants ; R.K. Soni for respondents. No. 1 to 3.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - S. 8(1) and 8(2) -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 17 and Art. 60 -- respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injuction in 2017 -- they alleged that three sale deeds executed by their mother in respect of disputed property during their minority are null and void -- they came to know about sale deeds on 20.11.2015 -- suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation -- trial Court rightly rejected applicant/defendant's application under O.7 R. 11, CPC. [Paras 9, 10 & 14
(2) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 8 -- sale deeds in respect of disputed property executed by mother of minors without permission of Court -- suit for mere declaration with payment of fixed court-free is maintainable. [Para 18
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-7 fu-11 & fganw vizkIro;rk vkSj laj{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 8 ¼1½ rFkk 8 ¼2½ & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 17 rFkk vuq- 60 & izR;FkhZx.k@oknhx.k us 2017 esa gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk rFkk LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn Qkby fd;k & mUgksaus vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd fookfnr laifÙk ds laca/k esa mudh vizkIro;rk ds nkSjku mudh ek¡ us rhu foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr fd, og v—r rFkk 'kwU; gSa & foØ; foys[kksa ds ckjs esa mudks tkudkjh 20-11-2015 dks gqbZ & okn ifjlhek ls oftZr gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkosnd@izfroknh dk fl-iz-la- ds vk- 7 fu- 11 ds v/khu vkosnu Bhd gh ukeatwj fd;kA ¼iSjk 9] 10 ,oa 14
¼2½ fganw vçkIro;rk vkSj lajd{krk vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 8 & vizkIro;ksa dh ekrk }kjk U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ds fcuk fookfnr laifÙk ds laaca/k esa foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr & ek= ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn] fu;r U;k;ky; Qhl ds lank; ds lkFk pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 18
1. This revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 20.6.2018, passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class- I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 236-A/2017, by which the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, alleging that three sale deeds executed by their mother in respect of disputed property during their minority on 8.4.1999, are null and void. It is further pleaded in the plaint that on 20.11.2015 the plaintiffs were carrying on their agricultural activities and the defendants came to the field and started abusing the plaintiffs and extended a threat to dispossess them and also threatened that they would alienate the property to some other persons. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land in dispute is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 2 to 6. The property has never been partitioned so far.
3. The applicants filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation because the sale deeds were executed by the mother of the plaintiffs on 4.4.1999, whereas the suit has been filed for declaration of sale deed as null and void on 15.12.2015. It is further submitted that as the plaintiffs wanted to avoid the sale deeds, therefore, they are liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee. The application filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected by the trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the present revision has been filed.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that according to the plaintiffs, they were minors at the time of execution of sale deeds by their mother, therefore, in view of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of attaining the majority. As per the age disclosed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 in the plaint, it is clear that they were aged about 15, 16 and 13 years respectively on 8.4.1999 and thus, it is clear that the suit which has been filed by the plaintiffs, is hopelessly bared by limitation.
6. Considered the submission made by counsel for the applicants.
7. Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as under :
''8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.
(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.
(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.
(4) No Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.
(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining the permission of the Court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the Court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular-
(a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deem
