Sale of Minor’s Property by De Facto Guardian is Void Ab Initio, Not Merely Voidable: Madras High Court - 2025-07-21

Madras HC: Knowledge of Exclusion and Decades of Silence Can Defeat Partition Claim Despite Void Sale Deed

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant judgment, has ruled that while a sale of a minor's property by a de facto guardian is void ab initio , a co-sharer's claim for partition can still be defeated by the principle of ouster if they remain silent for decades after gaining knowledge of their exclusion from the property.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Ilangovan, while dismissing a second appeal in a long-standing property dispute, held that the plaintiff's inaction for over 24 years after attaining majority, coupled with circumstances indicating knowledge of the void sale, barred her claim under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.

Case Background

The case involved a partition suit filed by Ms. Balammal for her half-share in an ancestral property. The property originally belonged to her great-grandfather, Muthuveeran. The dispute arose between the descendants of Muthuveeran's two sons, Chinnakaruppan (Balammal's grandfather) and Periyakaruppan (father of the original defendant, Velu).

Balammal's father passed away when she was a minor. In 1971, her paternal grandmother, Perumalammal, acting as a purported guardian, sold Balammal's share to the defendant's family via a sale deed (Ex.B1). The defendant contended that this sale was valid and, in any case, Balammal’s claim was barred by limitation and ouster due to her long silence.

The trial court had initially decreed the suit in Balammal's favour, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, dismissing her claim. This led to the present second appeal before the High Court.

Key Arguments and Legal Analysis

Appellant's Contentions (Balammal):

* The sale deed (Ex.B1) was void ab initio because her paternal grandmother was merely a de facto guardian, not a natural guardian, as her mother was alive.

* Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, explicitly prohibits a de facto guardian from disposing of a minor's property.

* Since the sale was void, there was no need to file a suit to set it aside within three years of attaining majority.

* The defendant had not specifically pleaded "ouster" in the written statement.

Respondent's Contentions (Velu's Heirs):

* The grandmother acted as a guardian for the minor's welfare.

* The sale was, at most, voidable, and the plaintiff's failure to challenge it in time extinguished her right.

* Their continuous and exclusive possession for over 37 years constituted ouster, barring the plaintiff's claim.

Court's Findings on Void Sale vs. Ouster

Justice Ilangovan meticulously analyzed the legal questions framed in the appeal.

On the Validity of the Sale (Ex.B1):

The Court firmly sided with the appellant on the invalidity of the sale. Citing the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Madhegowda (D) by Lrs Vs. Ankegowda (D) by Lrs & others [2002(4)CTC 51] , the judgment reiterated a crucial legal principle:

"Section 11 [of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act] includes all types of properties of a minor. No exception is provided in the Section... a transfer of the minor's interest by a de facto guardian/manager having been made in violation of the express bar provided under the Section is per se invalid... Such an invalid transaction is not required to be set aside by filing a suit or judicial proceeding."

The Court concluded that Ex.B1 was void and not merely voidable, and thus, the question of challenging it within a specific limitation period did not arise. It also held that an unregistered and unstamped release deed (Ex.B3) relied upon by the defendant was inadmissible in evidence.

On the Decisive Issue of Ouster and Limitation:

Despite finding the sale void, the Court ultimately non-suited the plaintiff on the grounds of ouster under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a 12-year limitation period for a person excluded from joint family property "when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff."

The judgment observed: * The plaintiff filed the suit in 2008, approximately 24 years after attaining majority around 1984. * Her claim of continuously demanding her share was found "totally unbelievable" due to the lack of evidence and the strained relationship indicated by the defendant's absence at her wedding. * The plaintiff failed to examine her mother, who was a competent witness to speak about her custody and affairs during her minority.

The Court emphasized that the circumstances strongly indicated that the plaintiff had knowledge of her exclusion long before filing the suit.

"All these things and the conduct of the plaintiff in remaining silent for more than two decades shows that she had knowledge about the sale. Even, if it is void, it can be taken as notice. So, the circumstances are clearly against the appellant/plaintiff. Having failed to file the suit within 12 years from the date of the knowledge, then non-suiting the plaintiff by the appellate court... [does not require] any interference."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, thereby confirming the first appellate court's decision to dismiss the partition suit. The judgment serves as a stark reminder that even with a strong legal position on the invalidity of a transaction, a claimant's rights can be extinguished by inordinate delay and conduct implying acquiescence to their exclusion from a property.