Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Vishnu Sneha – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Sree Daksha Property Developers (India) Pvt Ltd – Respondent
A.S.No.2 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Krishnakumar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Santhanaraman for Mr.S.Venugopalraj
A minor's challenge to a guardian's property sale must occur within three years of reaching majority, or the transaction becomes ratified.
Headnote:Under Sections 8(1), 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, any sale made by a guardian without court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor. The court determined the minor's right to contest such sale must be exercised within three years of attaining majority as per Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff failed to file the suit within the limitation period. The appeal is dismissed for lack of timely challenge to the sale deed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of plaintiff's claims regarding property ownership. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details on the trial court's rejection of the suit. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding limitation and void/voidable issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. court's consideration of limitation issues under relevant laws. (Para 11) |
| 5. clarification on the nature of sales by guardians under law. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. outcome of the appeal and reasoning for dismissal. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff, the present appeal came to be filed.
2. The suit has been originally filed by the plaintiff claiming for declaration of sale deed dated 22.01.2007 and subsequent sale deeds also partition of the properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally owned by her father Selvan Raman Achary, who died on 21.03.1997 leaving behind the plaintiff and the first defendant as the sole surviving legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, at the time of the death of her father, she was a minor, whereas, her mother/first defendant without any legal necessity and also without obtaining permission from the Court sold the property in favour of the second defendant by virtue of document Nos.309, 310 and 311 of 2007. Thereafter, the second respondent appointed power agent, who executed a sale deed in favour various persons. Hence, according to the plaintiff, sale deed executed in favour of second defendant and various persons is void ab initio as there was no permission whatsoever obtained from the Court to deal with the minor properties. Hence, filed the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2018.
4. The 10th defendant has filed an application to reject the suit on the ground that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The suit has been filed beyond the period of three years by the plaintiff after attaining majorty. That apart sale executed in only for the purpose of legal necessity. The share of the minor is also deposited in the fixed deposit which has been clearly reflected in the sale deed and the same has been suppressed in the entire plaint.
5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the following issue:
a. Whether this petition to reject the plaint is to be allowed?
6. The Trial Court after appreciation of documentary evidences considering the fact that the guardian has sold the property allowed the application and rejected the plaint by holding that the same ought to have been avoided by the plaintiff within a period of three years of attaining majority. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale itself is void, since, there was no permission whatsoever obtained from the Court. Therefore, as far as the void document is concerned, Article 60 (a) of the Limitation Act will not apply and the plaintiff can file a suit at any time. Whether the document is void in nature or voidable is a matter of evidence, it can be seen only at the time of the Trial. Therefore, the Trial Court rejecting the entire plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M.Bojan vs. B.Malathi and others made in S.A.No.591 of
2018 dated 28.03.2024.
9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that minor was eo-nominee party in the sale deed. The said deed is made only for the benefit of the party, her share is also deposited in the fixed deposit in a bank which has been suppressed by the minor. Further, it is the contention that it is not the case of the plaintiff that there was a fraud played and the sale has been made fraudulently. Sale deeds were sought to be annulled only on the ground that the permission has not been obtained. According to him, as far as the 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
