Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court held that a guardian could not sell the minor’s property without having set aside the deed. Hence, the sale is voidable and not void ab initio. A suit for setting aside the deed must be filed within three years from the date on which the minor would have turned major. In the case of minor’s death, the court should take into consideration the date on which such minor would have turned major.
In the instant case, Palani, being a minor, would have died in 1986; his grandfather would have bequeathed his property by will to Palanivel’s father—Balaram, who would have executed a sale deed relating to the property in 1981 on behalf of his son, and he ceased to live in 1983. After the minor son’s death in 1986, his mother executed a release deed in respect of the property, thereby providing absolute rights in the property to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs approached the apex court to declare the title and possession of the property but failed to pray for setting aside the sale deed executed by Balaram which turned the scenario of the case. Although the trial court decreed the suit, the High Court set aside the order, thereby causing the plaintiffs to move the Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs sued the defendants in 1992 based on the release deeds.
The plaintiffs relied on article 65 of the limitation act which provides for 12 years, and the sale deeds were executed without the leave of the court. Hence, the transaction being void ab initio, there was no need to cancel the sale. However, this contention did not satisfy the court. The Court said that article 60 of the limitation act is applicable in the instant case because the case was about father, being an eonominee party, conveying the property through registered sale deeds. Therefore, the rights of the minor were also transferred to the plaintiff. Article 65 would apply only when a suit is filed in respect of possession of immovable property on any interest therein based on the title.
Therefore, the court held that the suits to be time-barred. The appellants must have filed a suit to set aside the sale deed as the property belonged to a minor, and the same should have been done within three years from the date of attainment of the majority by the minor. Hence, the case attracts article 60 of the limitation act which provides for limitation for three years.
The Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph said that section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides that permission of the minor was pre-requisite for the guardian to sell minor’s property, and any sale in contravention with the said provision would be voidable under section 8(3). Hence, the sale remains valid until it is set aside.
Therefore, the court held that the release deeds could not provide any rights to the plaintiffs when the sale deed was not set aside. Any alienation, voidable at the instance of minor or on his behalf, had to be set aside before the plaintiffs seek any relief on the possession of the property. Since the plaintiffs did not pray for setting aside the sale, the suit could not be decreed.
It is pertinent to note that the mother could have set aside the sale deed as per section 8(3) in the event of the death of the minor. In the instant case, the mother had not done so, and thus the court held that the sale deed executed by Balaram did not get repudiated or avoided within the said limitation period prescribed by the law. The appeals were dismissed by the court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824