Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a sale of 40 bighas of land by a father as natural guardian of his minor sons to the first respondent under a registered sale deed dated 6 May 1959 for Rs. 20,000. The father had earlier filed Title Suit No. 75/1951 concerning Dumraon Raj, in which his minor sons were added as co-plaintiffs represented by a next friend/guardian ad litem. The suit ended in compromise granting the minors 58 acres and Rs. 90,000 in cash. The next friend was discharged by court order dated 22 February 1957, after which the father resumed management as natural guardian. The father sold the suit land to the first respondent without prior court permission. The purchaser constructed boundary walls and buildings, mutation was carried out, and final Record of Rights was published in his favour on 30 March 1970. The first appellant attained majority on 29 July 1966 and sought permission to deal with deposits. The appellants also wrote to the Collector of Bhojpur to recover loan arrears from the purchaser, acknowledging the sale. In 1972, consolidation proceedings began under the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Statements under Section 9A read with Section 10 and a draft scheme under Section 12 were published showing the first respondent as owner, but the appellants did not object within the statutory periods. Subsequently, they challenged the entries in the Chaker Register, contending that the sale by their father without court permission was illegal and not binding. The Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director, and Director of Consolidation held the sale void and not binding, with the revisional authority reasoning that appointment of a court guardian permanently extinguished the natural guardian's rights. The first respondent challenged these orders before the Patna High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that principles under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 were not apposite to a guardian appointed under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC, that the father's natural guardianship revived after discharge, and that the sale was voidable, not void. It also noted acquiescence and limitation bars. The High Court quashed the consolidation orders. On appeal, the appellants argued that the sale was void because the father acted as a stranger after court guardian appointment, and that the challenge was within 12 years of knowledge. They relied on Jiban Krishna Dutta and Another vs. Sailendra Nath Shee and Another, AIR 1946 Calcutta 272. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that an Order XXXII Rule 3 guardian's role is limited to the suit and natural guardianship revives upon discharge. Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes such a sale voidable, and the minor must challenge it within three years of attaining majority. The appellants did not do so and had acquiesced by writing to the Collector. The court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Guardianship - Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC - Court-appointed guardian/next friend's role limited to suit; natural guardian's rights revive after discharge absent adverse interest - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXII Rule 3 - In a title suit, minors were represented by a next friend/guardian ad litem; after compromise the guardian was discharged, and father resumed natural guardianship; High Court and Supreme Court held the appointment did not permanently destroy natural guardian's rights. Held that the father could act as natural guardian after discharge and his sale was not by a stranger. (Paras 1-4) B) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Section 8(2), 8(3) - Sale of minor's immovable property without court sanction is voidable, not void; limitation three years after attaining majority - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8(2) and 8(3) - The father sold minor sons' land without prior court permission; Court held such alienation is voidable under Section 8(3) and not void ab initio; minors must challenge within three years after majority; they did not, so sale became binding. Held that the consolidation authorities erred in treating sale as void. (Paras 1-4) C) Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act - Sections 3, 9A, 10, 10A, 12 - Finality of consolidation entries if no objections within statutory period - Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, Section 3, 9A, 10, 10A, 12 - Notification under Section 3, statements under Section 9A/10 and draft scheme under Section 12 published without objections from appellants; statutory bars precluded later challenge. Held that failure to object within prescribed periods rendered entries final and estopped challenge. (Paras 1-4) D) Estoppel - Acquiescence - Acceptance of sale by conduct bars subsequent challenge - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115 - Appellants wrote to Collector to recover loan from purchaser, acknowledging sale; after benefiting, they cannot turn round and challenge. Held that such acquiescence reinforced dismissal. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether sale of minor's immovable property by father/natural guardian without prior court permission is void or merely voidable; whether rights of natural guardian revive after discharge of guardian ad litem appointed under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC; whether challenge was barred by limitation and statutory finality under Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Patna High Court's judgment; sale by natural guardian without court sanction was voidable under Section 8(3) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, not void; minor's failure to challenge within three years after attaining majority and their acquiescence barred relief; consolidation authorities' orders were rightly quashed.
Law Points
- Appointment of guardian ad litem/next friend under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC is limited to suit and does not permanently extinguish natural guardian's rights
- Upon discharge of court-appointed guardian
- natural guardian's rights revive absent adverse interest
- Sale of minor's immovable property by natural guardian without prior court permission is voidable under Section 8(3) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956
- Minor must challenge voidable sale within three years after attaining majority
- Failure to object to consolidation statements and draft scheme within statutory periods bars later challenge under Bihar Consolidation Act
