Rupa vs Ramchandra - 1983 Supreme(MP) 319

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1983 Supreme(MP) 319

G. L. Oza, J.
Rupa v. Ramchandra
S. A. No. 291 of 1973(I); Decided on 8-9-1983

Headnote:(1) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 -- Ss. 8 (1) and 8 (2) -- transfer of minors property without legal necessity and without permission -- not binding on him --legal necessity to be proved by transferee.
(1) Civil P. C , 1908 -- S. 100 -- finding about legal necessity -- is a finding of fact.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Shajapur, in Civil Appeal No. 36-A of 1972, decided on 31-1-1973, where in the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Shajapur, in Civil Suit No. 122-A of 1963, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No. 1, plaintiff.

It appears that a sale-deed was executed by respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant of the suit lands on 11-2-1958. Admittedly, when the sale deed was executed plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was a minor and it is also found by the Courts below that the sale was without obtaining permission of the guardianship Court under S. 8 of that Act. On attaining majority respondent No. 1 filed a suit challenging the sale and also for possession on the ground that the sale effected on behalf of the minor is bad and not binding on him as it was not for legal necessity and it was also not with the previous permission of the guardianship Court under S. 8.

As regards the finding about legal necessity, it is finding of fact based on evidence in the case. Apparently no evidence appears to have been produced and it could not be doubted that the burden lay on the appellant to establish the legal necessity. In view of this, the inference drawn by the learned Court below that it was for the appellant to have put at least the mother who executed the sale deed in the witness-box could not be said to be erroneous view. On this ground also I see no reason to interfere with the decision given by the learned Court below.

As regards the question under S. 70 (4) of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, even if the contention of the appellant is accepted it is of no avail as the sale has been held to be invalid on the two other grounds:--(I) that it was effected without permission under S. 8 and (II) that it was not for legal necessity and therefore, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by going into that question at this stage. Appeal dissmissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document