Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned title to agricultural lands and an ancestral house in village Dekasunder, District Darrang, Assam. Plaintiff No.1 claimed to have inherited the property from his mother Sumitra Kalitani, who died shortly after his birth. Plaintiff No.2 claimed title to a portion of the land by purchase from Plaintiff No.1 in 1980. The defendants, heirs of Holiram Baruan, claimed title through a registered sale deed dated January 1, 1950, allegedly executed by Plaintiff No.1 in favour of Holiram Baruan. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 55 of 1981 seeking a declaration that the 1950 sale deed was forged, null and void, and for recovery of possession of Schedule B lands from the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale deed was genuine and that Plaintiff No.1 was a major at the time of execution. The first appellate court reversed, finding that Plaintiff No.1 was born in 1934 and was a minor on the date of the sale deed, rendering it void. The High Court dismissed the defendants' second appeal, affirming the appellate decree. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that Plaintiff No.1 was major when the deed was executed and that even if he was a minor, the suit was barred by limitation because it was filed more than 30 years after the deed. They also contended that the certified copy of the 1950 sale deed was admissible and attracted the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondents argued that the execution of the sale deed was not established, that the original deed was with the defendants and they deliberately withheld it, and that no presumption could be drawn from a certified copy when execution was denied. The Court noted that there was no dispute that Plaintiff No.1 had succeeded to the title by intestate succession from his mother. The only basis of the defendants' claim was the 1950 sale deed, which was challenged on the ground of the plaintiff's minority. The Court reasoned that a sale deed executed by a minor is void and cannot pass title. It further held that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act could not be applied to a certified copy when the original document was in the custody of the opposite party and its execution was denied. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Minor's Agreement - Void ab initio - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - A sale deed executed by a minor is void and cannot confer title; the minor's interest in inherited property cannot be alienated by such deed. Plaintiff No.1 was found to be a minor on the date of execution of the 1950 sale deed, making the deed invalid. Held that no title passed to Holiram Baruan or his successors (Not mentioned). B) Evidence Law - Presumption of Documents Thirty Years Old - Section 90 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The presumption of due execution of a document more than thirty years old does not apply to a certified copy when the original is in the custody of the opposite party and execution is denied. The defendants failed to produce the original sale deed, and the certified copy could not attract the presumption. Held that the certified copy could not be presumed genuine (Not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Recovery of Possession - Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - A suit challenging a void deed is not barred by limitation because the cause of action arises when the party relying on the void deed asserts title. The suit filed in 1981 challenging the 1950 sale deed was within limitation. Held that the suit was maintainable (Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed dated January 1, 1950 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of Holiram Baruan was valid when plaintiff No.1 was a minor; whether the suit filed in 1981 was barred by limitation; whether the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied to the certified copy of the 1950 sale deed
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, thereby upholding the plaintiffs' title and decreeing recovery of possession. The Court held that the sale deed of 1950 was not validly executed because plaintiff No.1 was a minor, and the certified copy did not attract the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Law Points
- A sale deed executed by a minor is void ab initio and cannot confer title
- presumption of due execution under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 does not apply to certified copies when original is withheld and execution is denied
- a suit challenging a void deed is not barred by limitation
