Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
A. Badharudeen, J.
Kakkovil Muliyarakkal
Krishnan Children and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Kakkovil Muliyarakkal
Vilasini (Died) and Ors. – Respondents
RSA No.733 of 2018
Decided on 3.10.2023
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 19(b) – Natural guardian of minor – Section 6(a) does not give impression that mother can be considered to be natural guardian of minor only after lifetime of father – Mother can act as natural guardian of minor and all her actions would be valid even during lifetime of father, who would be deemed to be ‘absent’ for the purpose of Section 6(a) of HMG Act and Section 19(b) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Alienation of immovable property by natural guardian without obtaining permission of Court is only voidable and not void – There should be prayer to set aside such alienation within three years of their attaining majority – Having not done the same, document could not be held as void. (Paras 13 and 15)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
The appellants in this Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.142/2006 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Parappanangadi. They assail the preliminary decree and judgment of partition dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Munsiff Court in the above suit and the decree and judgment in AS No.129/2009 dated 21.10.2017 passed by the Additional District Court, Tirur, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. The respondents herein are the defendants in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, who are the defendants in the above suit.
3. I shall refer the parties in this Regular Second Appeal as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’ for convenience.
4. At the time of admission, my predecessor, as per order dated 13.07.2022, formulated the following questions of law:—
“1. Whether the 9th plaintiff is entitled to act as the natural guardian of the minor children under Ext.A3 release deed No.35/1966 in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, particularly in the light of the fact that the father himself is the transferee under the document and the further fact that the rights of the minor children obtained by them under assignment deed No.290/1952 (Ext.B2) was also held by the 9th plaintiff mother as the natural guardian of the minor children?
2. Whether the fact that Ext.A3 release deed is not shown to be for the welfare of minors would make the document only as voidable?
3. Whether the challenge of release deed executed in the year 1996 is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the defendants attained majority in 1974 and 1971 and their father died in the year 1982?”
5. In this matter, the plaintiffs filed suit with prayer to partition the plaint B schedule property, asserting that originally the property was owned and possessed by one Krishnan, who is the husband of the 9th plaintiff and the father of the other plaintiffs and defendants, on the basis of kanam theeradharam No.3698/1960 marked as Ext.A2. So, according to the plaintiffs, the entire property is liable to be partitioned since Krishnan died intestate in the year 1984. Thereafter, the plaint was amended and contention raised to the effect that as per document No.2907/1953, marked as Ext.A1, Krishnan transferred his right in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. But Krishnan, subsequently obtained right over the entire plaint B schedule property on the basis of Ext.A3 kanam theeradharam deed No.35/1966 and the said document would recite that Krishnan was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property till his death. It is also contended that though Krishnan transferred his right over the property as per Ext.A1, the same got re-conveyed as per Ext.A3 and in such view of the matter also, Krishnan was the owner of the plaint B schedule property till his death. Therefore, the property is liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs and the defendants equally.
6. The defendants resisted the suit, raising specific contention that originally Krishnan obtained kanam right over the plaint B schedule property on the basis of document No.2952/1949, marked as Ext.B1 and at the time when Krishnan was possessing plaint B schedule property, he transferred his entire right in favour of the first plaintiff - Smt. Chandramathi and defendants 1 and 2 - Smt. Vilasini and Sri. Apputty. It was contended further in the additional written statement that Krishnan not obtained absolute right over the plaint B schedule property on the basis of Ext.A3 and the 1/3rd right obtained by the first plaintiff as per Ext.A1, alone was transferred in the name of Krishnan, since at the time of execution of Ext.A3, the first plaintiff was major. However, Ext.A3, executed for and on behalf
Mother can act as natural guardian of minor and all her actions would be valid even during lifetime of father.
Court elevated mother to an equal position as father, bolstering her right as a natural guardian of minor child under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Adoption Act, 1956.
The natural guardian's alienation of minors' property is valid if made prudently and for the minors' benefit, as per Section 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
A transfer document's validity stands unless proven otherwise; claims of duress must be backed by substantial evidence to affect property rights.
A registered release deed executed prior to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 nullifies daughters' co-parcenery claims, as no co-parcenery existed at the time of the amendment.
A voluntary partition deed conferring rights on a female heir is valid despite prior restrictions under Hindu inheritance law, emphasizing that such arrangements, once consensually made, cannot be co....
(1) Partition of self-acquired property – A living man has no heir – Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successionis is ineffective to convey any right.(2) Estoppel – Effect of estoppel can....
A lease executed prior to the Malabar Tenancy Act is treated as a fresh lease, influencing property characterization in relations of self-acquired versus ancestral ownership.
The 1961 partition deed, once accepted, overrides earlier settlement claims, establishing statutory sanctity and barring challenges due to lack of timely action.
Point of Law : Partition Deed – Accepting the partition and execution of subsequent deeds – Principle of estoppel and equity applies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
