Back
2011 (4) Supreme 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Rangammal — Appellant
versus
Kuppuswami & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2003
Decided on : 13-5-2011
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – When a person after attaining majority, questions any sale of his property by his guardian during his minority, the burden lies on the person who upholds/asserts the purchase not only to show that the guardian had the power to sell but further that the whole transaction was bona fide. (Para 15)
9WR 297; 17C 990 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – The initial burden was on the plaintiffs to establish genuineness of the sale deed – Then only the defendant no. 2 could be asked to rebut it – Misplacing burden of proof on a particular party and recording findings in a particular way vitiates the judgment. (Paras 19, 20)
AIR 2000 SC 1203 : (2000) 3 SCC 312; (2006) 12 SCC 198; (2008) 11 SCC 306 – Relied upon
2002 AIHC 4950 (AP) – Cited with approval
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – A suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties filed before the trial court in the form of plaint and written statement – Decisions ignoring the pleadings are vitiated. (Para 24)
(e) Judicial Review – Plaintiff using the alleged sale deed after 31 years to claim title – Suit could be held barred by limitation – Sale deed allegedly executed when defendant no. 2 was hardly 3 years old – Sale deed being in the possession of the plaintiffs defendant no. 2 did not have any occasion to challenge the deed – She did it on the first occasion after getting herself impleaded in the suit – She could not be made to suffer for this delay basically on the part of the plaintiffs. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
1. The High Court formulated the following question of law but decided and dismissed the second appeal summarily:
Whether the sale deed executed by the de facto guardian on behalf of the minor without the permission of the court could be held to be valid?
2. In this case question also arises whether in a partition suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, the courts below could shift the burden of proof on the defendant - appellant regarding the validity of a sale deed, which was executed when the appellant was admittedly a minor, contrary to the pleading in the plaint filed in a suit for partition, who claimed title to the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed.
3. The question also arises whether the question of limitation could arise against the defendant/appellant shifting the burden on her to challenge the sale deed, when the story of execution of the alleged sale deed was set up by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the plaint for the first time when he filed partition suit against his brother, without impleading the appellant, but claimed benefit of title to the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned judgment is erroneous.
Result : Appeal allowed with cost.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Burden of Proof in Sale of Minor’s Property: When a person, after attaining majority, questions a sale of their property made by a guardian during their minority, the burden lies on the party asserting the purchase to prove that the guardian had the authority to sell and that the transaction was bona fide (!) .
Burden of Proof in Sale for Legal Necessity: The initial burden is on the party claiming that the sale was executed for legal necessity to establish this fact. If they fail to do so, the burden does not shift to the minor or their successor to disprove the sale (!) (!) .
Proper Trial Principles: A suit must be decided based on the pleadings filed by the parties, and decisions that ignore these pleadings are vitiated. The court must evaluate the case on the basis of the pleadings and evidence presented by the parties (!) (!) .
Limitation and Delay in Challenging Sale Deeds: A person who was a minor at the time of a sale and later questions its validity must do so within the prescribed limitation period after attaining majority. Delay beyond this period can bar the claim, especially if the person had the opportunity to challenge the sale earlier (!) (!) .
Misplaced Burden of Proof Affects Judgments: Erroneously shifting the burden of proof or misinterpreting which party bears the proof obligation can lead to a flawed judgment. Proper application of the law requires that the burden remains with the party making the assertion, and misplacing it can invalidate the decision (!) (!) .
Inclusion of Property in Partition Suit: In a partition suit, only properties with clear and lawful title should be included. If a third party’s property is included without proper proof of ownership or legal title, the court must exclude it from the partition (!) (!) .
Effect of Delay and Knowledge on Challenging Sale Deeds: If a party is in actual possession of their property and only becomes aware of a sale years later, they are not barred from challenging the sale, especially if the suit was filed within a reasonable time after gaining knowledge. Delay in challenging a sale deed executed during minority does not necessarily bar the claim if the party was unaware of the sale (!) (!) .
Court’s Role in Correcting Errors: The appellate and trial courts must adhere to principles of legal evidence and pleadings. Errors such as misplacing the burden of proof or including property without proper title can lead to the modification or setting aside of decisions, including partition decrees (!) (!) (!) .
Final Outcome: The appeal was partly allowed, and the property transferred through the sale deed was excluded from the partition. The court emphasized that the party asserting the sale’s validity must prove it, and failure to do so invalidates the transaction. The judgment underscores the importance of proper proof, timely challenge, and adherence to legal principles in property disputes involving minors and guardians (!) (!) .
Costs: The respondent who initiated the collusive or invalid proceedings was ordered to pay costs to the appellant for unnecessary litigation (!) .
These points collectively highlight the legal principles concerning the sale of property by guardians during minority, the burden of proof, limitation periods, proper trial procedures, and the importance of accurate pleadings and evidence in property and partition disputes.
JUDGMENT
Gyan Sudha Misra, J. —
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant Tmt. Rangammal against the order dated 11.07.2002 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 703/1992 by which the appeal was dismissed by practically a summary order although the substantial question of law which was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal was as follows:
“Whether the sale deed executed by the de facto guardian on behalf of the minor without the permission of the court could be held to be valid ?
2. However, on hearing the appeal in the light of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the instant matter, we are of the view that the question also arises whether in a partition suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, the courts below could shift the burden of proof on the defendant - appellant regarding the validity of a sale deed, which was executed when the appellant was admittedly a minor, contrary to the pleading in the plaint filed in a suit for partition, who claimed title to the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed. Still further the question arises whether the question of limitation could arise against the defendant/appellant shifting the burden on her to challenge the sale deed, when the story of execution of the alleged sale deed was set up by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the plaint for the first time when he filed partition suit against his brother, without impleading the appellant, but claimed benefit of title to the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed.
3. In order to decide the aforesaid controversy, it is necessary to relate the facts giving rise to this appeal in so far as it is relevant which disclose that the appellant Tmt. Rangammal was impleaded as second defendant in a suit for partition bearing O.S. No. 255/1982 which had been filed by one Kuppuswami plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein in the court of District Munsif, Palani, against his brother Andivelu who was the principal defendant/1st defendant/respondent No.2 herein for partition and separate possession, but the plaintiff also included the property of the appellant-Rangammal in the schedule to the plaint without including her as a party to the suit as it was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Kuppuswami that the share which originally belonged to the appellant-Rangammal, was transferred to their predecessors, who were father and uncle of the plaintiff and defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 Andivelu, by way of a sale deed dated 24.2.1951 executed in their favour by Kumara Naicker who claimed to be the legal guardian of the Rangammal when the appellant/Rangammal was admittedly a minor and was barely few years old, less than even three years. The sale deed was claimed to have been executed for legal necessity in order to discharge the debt of the deceased mother of the appellant in the year 1951 which according to the case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had been transferred to their branch by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed executed on 24.2.1951 by the alleged guardian of the appellant Kumara Naicker.
4. Since the appellant had not been impleaded in the suit for partition although her property was included in the partition suit between the two brothers i.e. plaintiff Kuppuswami-respondent No.1 herein and Andivelu 1st defendant -respondent No.2 herein, the appellant filed an application for impleadment in the partition suit before the trial court which was allowed.
5. The appellant herein who was impleaded as a second defendant in the suit clearly pleaded that the partition suit filed by Kuppuswami-plaintiff against his brother Andivelu 1st defendant -respondent No.2 herein, was collusive in nature as this was clearly to deprive the appellant from her share by relying on an alleged sale deed dated 24.2.1951 by fraudulently stating that the deceased mother of the appellant was owing certain debt during her lifetime and in order to dischar
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
