1. Suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed executed by a natural guardian for a minor, alleging lack of consideration, legal necessity, and invalidity for want of judicial permission. (Para 2 , 3 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
Shilpa T. Sunny – Appellant
Versus
K.N. Prasad – Respondent
RSA NO. 647 OF 2026
Important Points
Prior judicial permission is not mandatory for a natural guardian of a Christian minor to alienate immovable property, and any suit to set aside such a transfer is barred by limitation if filed more than three years after the ward attains majority.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Limitation Act, 1963: Art.60(a), S.6(1), S.3
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: S.30, S.4(2), S.29
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: S.30, S.4(2), S.29
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Headnote
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 60(a) and Section 6(1) - Suit to set aside transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward - Limitation period of three years from the date the ward attains majority - Suit instituted long after the statutory period is time-barred. (Paras 18)
(B) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 29 and Section 4(2) - Alienation of minor's property - Previous sanction of the Court is not necessary for the natural guardian to transfer the share of a Christian minor - Natural guardians fall under the definition of 'guardian' and are not obligated to seek prior judicial permission before executing a conveyance. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs challenged a sale deed executed by their mother, acting as their natural guardian, while they were minors. They alleged that the sale consideration was not received or utilized for their benefit and sought cancellation of the deed. The first defendant contended that the transaction was bona fide, consideration was paid and deposited in fixed deposits for the minors, and the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had attained majority years prior to the filing of the suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recitals in the sale deed proved the payment of consideration and its deposition in fixed deposits. The evidence provided by the plaintiffs was contradictory and unsupported by pleadings. The suit was found to be clearly time-barred under Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Whether prior judicial permission was mandatory for the mother to alienate the property of the Christian minor children and whether the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a natural guardian of a Christian minor is not required to obtain prior Court sanction to transfer the minor's property. Furthermore, the limitation for challenging such a transfer is three years from the date of attaining majority, making the present suit time-barred.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
(B) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 29 and Section 4(2) - Alienation of minor's property - Previous sanction of the Court is not necessary for the natural guardian to transfer the share of a Christian minor - Natural guardians fall under the definition of 'guardian' and are not obligated to seek prior judicial permission before executing a conveyance. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs challenged a sale deed executed by their mother, acting as their natural guardian, while they were minors. They alleged that the sale consideration was not received or utilized for their benefit and sought cancellation of the deed. The first defendant contended that the transaction was bona fide, consideration was paid and deposited in fixed deposits for the minors, and the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had attained majority years prior to the filing of the suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recitals in the sale deed proved the payment of consideration and its deposition in fixed deposits. The evidence provided by the plaintiffs was contradictory and unsupported by pleadings. The suit was found to be clearly time-barred under Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Whether prior judicial permission was mandatory for the mother to alienate the property of the Christian minor children and whether the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a natural guardian of a Christian minor is not required to obtain prior Court sanction to transfer the minor's property. Furthermore, the limitation for challenging such a transfer is three years from the date of attaining majority, making the present suit time-barred.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Madhu, C.R. Saradamani, Renjish S. Menon, Avanthika R., Karthik Krishna M., R. Anilkumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Madhu, C.R. Saradamani, Renjish S. Menon, Avanthika R., Karthik Krishna M., R. Anilkumar
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued the alienation was void for lack of prior court permission; defendants contended the suit is time-barred and the sale was a bona fide legal necessity. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 )
3. The court analyzed contractual evidence, witness testimony, and the validity of a natural guardian's authority to sell a Christian minor's property without prior judicial sanction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. A natural guardian of a Christian minor is under no obligation to obtain prior judicial permission before alienating the minor's immovable property for legal necessity or welfare. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. The Second Appeal is dismissed as lacking merit, and the judgment of the lower courts is affirmed. (Para 21 )
6. Does a natural guardian of a Christian minor require prior judicial permission for the alienation of property?
No, a natural guardian of a Christian minor is not legally obligated to obtain prior sanction or permission from the court before executing a conveyance of the minor's property. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. What is the period of limitation for a suit to set aside a transfer made by a guardian?
Under Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for such a suit is three years, commencing from the date when the ward attains majority. (Para 18 )
8. Can judicial permission requirements for Hindu minors be applied to Christian minors?
No, rules under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, do not apply to Christian minors; the status of natural guardians for Christian minors is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which does not necessitate prior judicial permission for such alienations. (Para 20 )
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 5.11.2026, THE COURT ON 13.11.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs who lost before both the Courts have filed the Second Appeal.
2. O.S.No.195/2023 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, contending that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the late father of the plaintiffs and, following his demise, the plaintiffs inherited the absolute title, ownership, and possession over the said property by way of intestate succession. On 3.1.2006, an agreement for sale was entered into, after which a sale deed was executed as Sale Deed No. 58/2006 at SRO, Devikulam, between the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 concerning the plaint schedule properties.
3. In the said document, the plaintiffs were represented by their mother as their natural guardian, as they were minors at the relevant time. Alleging that the mother of the plaintiffs did not receive the entire sale consideration stipulated under the said agreement and that, no portion of the consideration was paid, deposited or utilized for the welfare, benefit, or maintenance of the minors/plaintiffs and that they became aware of the transaction only on 15.1.2022, the suit was filed challenging the alienation as per Sale Deed No. 58/2006 and the subsequent transactions and prayed for cancelling the same and declaring them not binding on the plaintiffs and also, for recovering possession of their respective shares in the property.
4. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. It was contended that the first plaintiff attained majority in the year 2011 and the second plaintiff in the year 2015, and since the suit was instituted long after the expiry of the statutory period, the claim is time-barred. It is also argued that the plaintiffs had previously instituted another suit, O.S.No.130/2021, on the same cause of action and therefore, the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also urged that the mother of the plaintiffs, who executed the document, was not made a party and, therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. It is argued that the sale transaction was bona fide, valid and executed for valuable consideration reflecting the market value of the property and that the entire sale consideration was duly paid by the first defendant.
5. The respective share amounts due to the minor plaintiffs were safely deposited in Fixed Deposits at the Federal Bank, Munnar Branch, on 29.12.2005. The fact of the deposit of funds for the benefit of the minors was explicitly recited in registered Sale Deed No.58/2006 and that the plaintiffs, upon attaining majority, had withdrawn the full maturity amounts. The sale was executed by the mother of the plaintiffs acting for herself and as the natural guardian for the welfare and legal necessity of the minors. The entire estate of late Mr Sunny T. Jacob, the father of the plaintiffs, was burdened with heavy debts and liabilities owed to various banks and financial institutions. The sale of the property was imperative to discharge those pressing liabilities and save the family estate.
6. The Trial Court framed five issues as follows:
“1. Is the suit barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC?
2. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
3. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree of cancellation of Sale deed No. 58/2006 of SRO Devikulam?
4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get the shares of plaint scheduled properties?
5. Orders as to reliefs and costs.”
7. On the side of the plaintiffs, PW1 and 2 were examined.
Exhibits A1, C1 and C1(a) were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW1 and Exhibit B1 was marked.
8. The Trial Court had found that there was no necessity in taking prior permission before the alienation,
