1993 JTR(SC) 479
1993 22 AllLR 1 ; 1993 3 ALT(SC) 3 ; 1993 2 APLJ 47 ; 1993 2 AWC 1117 ; 1993 CivCC 659 ; 1993 Supp CivCC 76 ; 1993 2 CurCC(SC) 176 ; 1993 2 CurLJ 1 ; 1993 1 HinduLR 663 ; 1993 ISJ(Banking) 513 ; 1993 3 JT 340 ; 1993 3 RRR 243 ; 1993 2 Scale 806 ; 1993 4 SCC 38 ; 1984 SCC(L&S) 131 ; 1993 3 SCR 589 ; 1993 2 UJ 69 ; 1993 KHC 1236
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANNI LAL
versus
RAJINDER SINGH
Decide on May 5, 1993
Act Referred :HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT : S.8
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which governs the powers of a natural guardian to alienate the immovable property of a Hindu minor. Under this section, while a natural guardian may perform acts necessary or reasonable for the benefit of the minor's estate, the sale of immovable property is strictly prohibited without the previous permission of the court. Any such disposal conducted without court permission or without being for the benefit of the minor is rendered voidable at the instance of the minor. The court analyzed whether the attestation of a sale deed by a father could convert a sale executed by the mother into a valid alienation by the natural guardian under the statutory requirements of Section 8.
(B) A sale of a minor's immovable property by a guardian without court permission is voidable. The mere attestation of a sale deed by the father does not equate to the father acting as the natural guardian executing the sale, nor does it bypass the mandatory requirement for court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Facts of the case:
Two minors' land was sold by their mother, acting as their guardian, via a registered sale deed. Upon attaining majority, the respondents sued for possession, claiming the sale was void as it occurred without court permission. The appellant argued that the sale was valid because it was attested by the father (the natural guardian), was for legal necessity, and that the suit was barred by limitation as the sale was voidable rather than void.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reliable evidence that the sale was for the legal necessity or benefit of the minors. It was undisputed that no court permission was obtained. The court observed that since the father was active and existent (evidenced by his attestation), the mother could not be treated as the sole natural guardian in a manner that would bind the minors' property without following the legal procedure. The court affirmed that the sale was voidable and the suit was within the limitation period.
Issues:
1. Whether a sale deed executed by the mother and attested by the father constitutes a sale by the natural guardian under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
2. Whether the sale of a minor's property without court permission is void or voidable.
3. Whether the sale was for the legal necessity or benefit of the minors.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is designed to protect a minor's property from unauthorized alienation. For a sale of immovable property to be valid, it must be for the benefit of the minor and must have prior court permission. Attestation by the father does not transform an unauthorized sale by the mother into a valid legal alienation by the natural guardian.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; the judgment of the High Court is upheld.
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which governs the powers of a natural guardian to alienate the immovable property of a Hindu minor. Under this section, while a natural guardian may perform acts necessary or reasonable for the benefit of the minor's estate, the sale of immovable property is strictly prohibited without the previous permission of the court. Any such disposal conducted without court permission or without being for the benefit of the minor is rendered voidable at the instance of the minor. The court analyzed whether the attestation of a sale deed by a father could convert a sale executed by the mother into a valid alienation by the natural guardian under the statutory requirements of Section 8.
(B) A sale of a minor's immovable property by a guardian without court permission is voidable. The mere attestation of a sale deed by the father does not equate to the father acting as the natural guardian executing the sale, nor does it bypass the mandatory requirement for court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Facts of the case:
Two minors' land was sold by their mother, acting as their guardian, via a registered sale deed. Upon attaining majority, the respondents sued for possession, claiming the sale was void as it occurred without court permission. The appellant argued that the sale was valid because it was attested by the father (the natural guardian), was for legal necessity, and that the suit was barred by limitation as the sale was voidable rather than void.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reliable evidence that the sale was for the legal necessity or benefit of the minors. It was undisputed that no court permission was obtained. The court observed that since the father was active and existent (evidenced by his attestation), the mother could not be treated as the sole natural guardian in a manner that would bind the minors' property without following the legal procedure. The court affirmed that the sale was voidable and the suit was within the limitation period.
Issues:
1. Whether a sale deed executed by the mother and attested by the father constitutes a sale by the natural guardian under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
2. Whether the sale of a minor's property without court permission is void or voidable.
3. Whether the sale was for the legal necessity or benefit of the minors.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is designed to protect a minor's property from unauthorized alienation. For a sale of immovable property to be valid, it must be for the benefit of the minor and must have prior court permission. Attestation by the father does not transform an unauthorized sale by the mother into a valid legal alienation by the natural guardian.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; the judgment of the High Court is upheld.
J.D.JAIN, KAVAL JIT KOCHAR, S.M.Ashri
Judgment
BHARUCHA
( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High court dismissing the appeal filed before it by the appellant.
( 2 ) THE suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marias of land at village Qayarnpur. The said land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh, the respondents, and was sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal, acting as their guardian, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 30/07/1964. Upon attaining majority the-respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof, having been made without the permission of the court, was void. The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and that the sale should, therefore, be deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents. It was also contended that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of therespondents. The suit, it was also alleged, was barred by limitation because, the sale being voidable and not void, it had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority. The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents; that the sale by the respondents mother without the permission of the court was void; and that the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Ambala and the High court failed.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placed great reliance upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and submitted that the sale deed should, therefore, be taken to have been entered into by the natural guardian of the respondents for legal necessity and their benefit.
( 4 ) SECTION 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act sets out the powers of the natural guardian of a Hindu minor. The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of Section 8, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or his estate. The natural guardian, however, may not without the previous permission of the court sell any part of the immovable property of the minor. Any disposal of immovable property which is not necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or is without the previous permission of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor.
( 5 ) IN the instant case, there is, as found by the trial court and affirmed in appeal, no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that the sale deed had been made for the benefit of the minor respondents and his evidence had been eroded in cross-examination so that there was no "reliable evidence on record to show that the alienation in dispute had been made for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the plaintiffs". That the sale was effected without the permission of the court is not in dispute. The sale is, therefore, in any event, voidable.
( 6 ) THE question is whether, in the circumstances of the case, it may be said that the sale was effected by the father and natural guardian of the respondents because he had attested the sale deed executed by the mother of the respondents. In this behalf our attention was invited to this courts judgment in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre v. Pathankhan. This was a case in which it was held that the position in Hindu law was that when the father was alive he was the natural guardian and it was only after him that the mother became the natural guardian. Where the father was alive but had fallen out with the mother of the minor child and was living separately for several years without taking any interest in the affairs of the minor, who was in the keeping and care of the mother, it was held that, in the peculiarcircumstances, the father should be treated as if non-existent and, therefore, the mother could be considered as the natural guardian of the minors person as well as property, having power to bind the minor by dealing with her immovable property.
( 7 ) IN the present case, there is no evidence to show that the father of the respondents was not taking any interest in their affairs or that they were in keeping and care of the mother to the exclusion of the father. In fact, his attestation of the sale deed shows that he was very much existent and in the picture. If he was, then the sale by the mother, notwithstanding the fact that the father attested it, cannot be held to be a sale by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of Section 8.
( 8 ) THE provisions of Section 8 are devised to fully protect the property of a minor, even from the depredations of his parents. Section 8 empowers only the legal guardian to alienate a minors immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the court has been obtained. It is difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale was voidable, not void, by reason of the fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father attested it.
( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.