A minor's repudiation of a void property sale executed by a defacto guardian does not require them to restore benefits to a purchaser aware of their minority.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Common substantial questions of law arising in the appeals are the following:

i. Is a minor, who repudiates an alienation of his property by a defacto guardian, always bound to restore the benefits derived by him?

ii. Is the minor under all circumstances liable to compensate the purchaser of property, either personally or out of his assets, in the event he succeeds in establishing that the alienation is void?

iii. What is the liability of the defacto guardian who represented the minor in the document of alienation?

iv. Is the purchaser entitled to claim title to a property purchased in the name of the minor by utilizing the sale consideration provided by the former?

For the sake of convenience, R.S.A.No.626 of 2009 is taken as the leading case, which is the appeal against O.S.No.338 of 1987. The parties and documents are hereinafter referred to in the rank in the above suit.

RSA Nos.885/2006 and 626/2009 2

2. Facts, in nut shell: O.S.No.338 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad is a suit for declaration that Ext.A2 sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant, who is the sister of the quondam minor plaintiff, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void and also to allow the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1 and 2. The suit was decreed. Against the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.635 of 1990 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Additional District Judge after a detailed consideration, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against that judgment and decree, defendants 1 and 2 have come up in R.S.A.No.626 of 2009.

3. After putting the decree in O.S.No.338 of 1987 to execution and also after taking delivery of the property by the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 preferred O.S.No.197 of 1999 before the learned Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad. In that suit, the plaintiff in O.S.No.338 of 1987 is the 1st defendant and his sister (3rd defendant in the earlier suit) is the 2nd defendant. This suit is one for recovery of possession of B schedule property in Ext.A2 document impugned in the former suit.

4. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.338 of 1987 challenging Ext.A2 document, executed admittedly during his minority. In the document itself, he is shown as a person aged 15 years at the time of its execution and he was represented by his sister, who was not the natural guardian under the RSA Nos.885/2006 and 626/2009 3 provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short, “the Act 1956”). There cannot be any dispute that Ext.A2 executed by the 3rd defendant, acting as guardian of the plaintiff, is void under Section 11 of Act 1956. Therefore, defendants 1 and 2 in the suit were defenceless against the reliefs claimed in the suit, viz., declaration of title of the plaintiff over the property and recovery of possession of the property from defendants 1 and 2. It is an admitted case that the minor plaintiff, in execution of the decree, got possession of the property shown in the plaint schedule in O.S.No.338 of 1987. Thereafter, the defeated defendants filed O.S.No.197 of 1999 seeking reliefs against another property, shown in Ext.A2 document. According to the defendants, (plaintiffs in O.S.No.197 of 1999), the property described as item No.2 in Ext.A2 is the property given as security for safeguarding their interests, in case the minor challenged the transaction a later point of time. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that remedy available to the defendants was only to mitigate loss sustained by them by taking recourse to the indemnity clause in Ext.A2 assignment deed and to proceed against the 3rd defendant for realising compensation. It was also found that by operation of law, the plaintiff cannot claim title to the property shown as item No.2 in Ext.A2 assignment deed. In effect, the defendants not only suffered a set back in the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declara