A sale deed executed by a de facto guardian for a Muslim minor is void and cannot be ratified by the minor upon attaining majority.

JUDGMENT

The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021 made in A.S.No.99 of 2006 on the file of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2005 made in O.S.No.908 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

2.The unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present second appeal. The respondents as plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction to demolish the building in the suit property constructed by the defendants and for recovery of possession.

3.According to the plaintiff, the portion shown as ' E F H C ' in the plaint plan originally belong to one Abdulla Sahib. The said Abdulla Sahib sold a portion of the property excluding the suit property to the defendants on 23.10.1996, shown as second item of the suit schedule. The boundary recitals in the above sale deed would clearly establish that the defendants have purchased the property excluding the suit property shown as ' A B C D' in the plaint plan. Thereafter, the said Abdulla Sahib on 28.08.1997 sold the said property to the plaintiffs and the father of the plaintiffs was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, since the plaintiffs were minors at that point of time. While so, during the 1stweek of February 1999 the defendants trespassed into the suit property and constructed a building, pending suit. The defendants have no right or possession over the suit property. Thereafter, on 04.12.1997 the defendants have purchased the entire suit property from one Sahul Hamid who was minor at that point of time. The plaintiffs also filed a suit in O.S.No.999/97 and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiffs since they were not aware of the age of Minor Sahul Hamid. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit in O.S.No.908/98.

4. On the other hand, the defendants contention is that the suit property and other properties in total measuring 0.4 cents originally belongs to one minor Sahul Hamid under a sale deed dated 21.05.1984. While so, the mother of Sahul Hamid namely Balkies sold the above properties to one Abdulla Sahib, vendor of the plaintiffs and the defendants on 05.03.1987. The above sale is not valid. Hence, the said Abdulla Sahib did not acquire any right over the suit property and he was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, under the misrepresentation made by the said Abdulla Sahib, the mother of the defendants purchased 3 ¾ cents out of the total 4 cents. Thereafter, the said Sahul Hamid after attaining majority, issued a legal notice dated 18.11.1997 to the said Abdul Sahib and to the father of the plaintiffs namely Mohamed Ali. While so, the father of the plaintiffs Mohamed Ali purposely got a sale deed on 12.12.1997 knowing well that the said Abdulla Sahib has no right over the properties. The said sale deed is not valid in the eye of law. On 04.12.1997 the defendants got a sale deed in respect of the entire 4 cents from the actual owner Sahul Hamid and from then onwards the entire suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the properties purchased by them. The plaintiffs have produced the School certificate of Sahul Hamid to state that he was a minor at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of the defendants. The said School certificate do not belong to Sahul Hamid. The said Sahul Hamid has sold his properties to third parties after attaining majority. Further, the plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.999/97 since the i