Case Note & Summary
The original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profit against the appellant, claiming that the sale deed executed by their mother during their minority was voidable for want of court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The suit property was ancestral land, and the father had died in 1968. The mother sold it to the appellant in 1974, citing legal necessity due to debts. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding legal necessity established by the sale deed recitals. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, holding that the mother required court permission and that the purchaser failed to prove legal necessity. The appellate court decreed the suit in favor of three plaintiffs, ordering recovery of their shares. The appellant filed a second appeal, raising substantial questions of law on the applicability of Section 8(2) and the maintainability of the suit without a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. The appellant argued that the mother, as natural guardian, could alienate the property without court permission for legal necessity and that the suit was not maintainable without seeking cancellation. The respondents contended that court permission was mandatory under Section 8(2) and that the sale was voidable, entitling them to possession. The High Court admitted the appeal and reserved judgment.
Headnote
A) Guardianship and Minors - Alienation by Natural Guardian - Court Permission - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8(2) - Whether sale deed by mother without court permission was voidable. Appellant argued Section 8(2) does not apply to undivided interest and mother could act as Karta. Respondent argued permission was mandatory. Court framed substantial question on applicability of Section 8(2). (Paras 1, 7, 8, 9)
B) Civil Procedure - Suit for Possession - Maintainability Without Cancellation of Sale Deed - Specific Relief Act - Whether plaintiffs needed to seek cancellation of sale deed. Appellant contended suit not maintainable without such prayer; respondent argued sale voidable and possession suit sufficed. Court framed substantial question on necessity of setting aside alienation. (Paras 7, 8)
C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Legal Necessity - The appellate court reversed trial court finding on legal necessity, holding purchaser failed to discharge burden despite recitals in sale deed. (Paras 5, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mother of the original plaintiffs could have justifiably alienated the suit property in favour of the appellant without seeking permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; and whether there was any necessity for the plaintiffs to have prayed for setting aside the alienation
Law Points
- Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956 mandates court permission for alienation of minor's property by natural guardian
- mother as natural guardian cannot alienate minor's property without such permission
- sale without court permission is voidable at minor's instance
- burden of proving legal necessity lies on the purchaser
- suit for possession without cancellation of voidable sale deed is maintainable
- limitation for challenge runs from date of attaining majority
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 53
Second Appeal (SA) No. 582 of 2006
Shri G.R. Sadar for appellants, Smt. Radhika Raskar for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr. Vasantrao Gulabrao Thakre (since dead) through his legal heirs: 1. Smt. Haridini Vasantrao Thakre, 2. Mr. Prashant Vasantrao Thakre, 3. Mr. Rajesh Vasantrao Thakre, 4. Mr. Surekha Sanjayrao Raut, 5. Miss Archana Vasantrao Thakre
1. Mr. Sudhakar Wamanrao Hingankar, 2. Mr. Nandkumar Wamanrao Hingankar, 3. Mr. Kishor Wamanrao Hingankar, 4. Mr. Pandit Wamanrao Hingankar, 5. Mr. Prabhakar Wamanrao Hingankar (since dead) through legal heirs, 6. Smt. Parwatabai Wamanrao Hingankar, 7. Smt. Pramilabai Vasantrao Thengade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for possession and mesne profit arising out of sale of property by mother as natural guardian during minority of plaintiffs.
Remedy Sought
Original plaintiffs (sons) sought possession of suit property and enquiry into mesne profit after alleging that sale deed executed by their mother was voidable.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs claimed that their mother sold property without legal necessity and without court permission under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act when they were minors.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed suit, holding legal necessity existed; Appellate Court decreed suit for three plaintiffs, holding sale void for want of court permission and lack of legal necessity; second appeal filed by defendant.
Issues
Whether the transaction was hit by Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Whether there was any necessity for the plaintiffs to have prayed for setting aside the alienation
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that Section 8(2) did not apply to undivided interest and mother could act as Karta; legal necessity was proved from sale deed recitals; suit not maintainable without cancellation of sale deed.
Respondents argued that court permission under Section 8(2) was mandatory; mother could not sell without permission; burden of proving legal necessity was on purchaser and not discharged; sale was voidable.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the mother of the said original plaintiffs could have justifiably alienated the suit property in favour of the appellant without seeking permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the aforesaid saledeed had been executed by mother (defendant No.3) without legal necessity.
the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit... holding that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving legal necessity in the present case and that reliance only on the contents of the saledeed to prove the same was not justified.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 55 of 1992 on 14.07.1992 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daryapur; Trial Court dismissed suit on 03.12.1992; Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1994 before District Judge, Achalpur; Appellate Court partly allowed appeal and decreed suit on 28.10.2005; Appellant filed Second Appeal No. 582 of 2006, admitted on 25.02.2008; High Court reserved judgment on 17.04.2018 and pronounced on 04.05.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: 6, 8, 12
