Holding

The sale is void, not voidable, because Section 8 requires prior court permission and the father's attestation does not satisfy the requirement of a sale by the natural guardian.

Summary

The mother of two minor respondents sold their land to the appellant without obtaining court permission, though the deed was attested by the father. After attaining majority, the respondents sued for possession, claiming the sale was void. The appellant argued that the father's attestation made the sale a valid act of the natural guardian and that it was for the minors' benefit, also invoking limitation. The trial court and the High Court held that the sale was void because Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 requires prior court permission and the sale was not shown to be for necessity or benefit; the suit was timely. The Supreme Court affirmed that the father's attestation does not convert the mother's act into a valid guardianship transaction and that the sale is void, not merely voidable, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a sale of immovable property of a Hindu minor by the mother, without court permission, but attested by the father, is void or voidable under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Whether the father's attestation makes the sale a transaction by the natural guardian.
Whether the limitation period bars the suit if the sale is deemed voidable.

Legislation cited

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956s. 8

Subjects

Hindu Minority and Guardianship ActSection 8minor's propertysale without court permissionvoid vs voidablenatural guardianlimitation period

Judgment

PANNILAL A

v.

RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.
MAY 5, 1993
B
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.P. UHARUCHA, JJ.]
Tire Hindu Minority and G11ardianslzip Act. 1956: Section 8-lntent
of-Whether protects rlze property ofa 111i11orfro1111/ze depredations ofrlze parents
even.

Words and Phrases-Voidable and Void-Sale oftlze property ofthe minor c
by his 111otherwitl1011t permission ofthe court ancl a/tested by tlzefather-Whetlzer
voidable or void.

Sale of rlze property of rlze minor by lzis mother and attested by liis
fatlzer-lnterpretation of-Whether amounts to a sale by the nat1iral guardian of
D
the minor for legal necessity and benefit of the minor.

The mother of the re'spondent minors, acting as their guardian, sold
their land, while they were still minors, to the appellant under a registered sale
deed dated July 30, 1964. The respondent.<;, upon attaining majority, sued the
appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof,
E
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 contended that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the
respondent'i and the sale should, therefore, be deemed to have been a sale by
the legal guardian of t,1e respondent<;. It was also pleaded that the sale had F
been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. It was also alleged
that the suit was barred by limitation because the sale was voidable and not
void and the suit had not been brought within three years of each of th.e
respondents attaining majority.

The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion G
that it had not been prm·ed that the sale was for legal necessity or for the
benefit of the respondents, that the sale by the respondent's mother without
the permission of the court was void, and the sale was void and not voidable
and the suit was, therefore, in time and was decreed..
H
589
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1993] 3 S.C.R.

A The appeal filed b}· the appellant before the Additional Distt. Judge and ,
the High Court failed.

The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal by special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, this court,
B
HELD : 1. The provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 are devised to fully protect the property of' a minor,
e\•en from the depredations of his parent<>. Section 8 empowers onl~· the legal
guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property provided it is for the
c necessity or benefit of the rninor or his estate and it further requires that such
alienation shall be etlccted after the permission of the Court has been
obtained. 1 ·:·· ·

2. [twas difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale, by reason of the fact
that the mother of the minor respondents signed .the sale deed and the father
D attested it, was \'oidahle, not void. (592-G)

3. The attestation of the sale deed by the father showed that he was very
much existent and i!l the picture. If he was, then the sale by the mother,
notwithstanding the fact that the father attested it, cannot be held to be sale
by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8.
E
.(592-E)

Jijabai Vitlwlrao Gajre v. Pathankhan & Ors. AIR 1971SC315, distinguished.
(662-A)

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2198 of 1986.

From the Judgment and order dated 17 .12.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in R.S.A No. 1155 of 1977.

G S.M. Ashri for the Appellant.

Ms. Kawaljit Koc~ar for J.D. Jain for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ff
BHARUCHA, J. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and
PANNI LAL v. RAJINDER SINGH [BHARUCHA, J.] 591

order of the Punjab & Haryana High Coun dismissing the appeal filed before it by A
the appellant.

The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas ofland at village.Qayampur. 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 30th July, 1964. Upon B
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
c
that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. 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 D
the benefit of the respondents; that the sale by the respondent's 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.

Learned counsel for the appellant placed great reliance upon the fact that the E
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.

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act sets out the powers
F
of the natural guardian of a Hindu minor. The natural guardian'-Of a Hindu Minor
has power, subject to the provisioqs 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 ofthe 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 G
without the previous permission of the court is voidable at the instance of the
minor.

In the instant case, there, is, as found by the trial co.urt and affirmed in appe~.
no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that the sale deed had been made
forthe benefit of the mi nor respondents and his evidence hadbeen eroded in cross- H
592 SUPREME COL!RT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
dispute. The sale is, therefore, in any event, voidable.

The question is whether, in the circumstances of the case, it may be said that
B 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 Court's judgment in Jijabai Vitlzalrao
Gajre vs. Patlzanklzan and ors., AIR 1971 S.C. 315. This was a case in which it
was held that the position in Hindu law was that when the father was alive he was
C 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 peculiar circumstances, the father should be treated as if non-
existent and, therefore, the mother could be considered as the natural guardian of
D the minor's person as well as property. having P,wer to bind the minor by dealing
with her immovable property.

In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the father of the
respondents was not taking any interest in their affaii's or that they were in keeping
and care of the mother to the exclusion of the father. In fact, his attestation of the
E 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.

F 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 minor"s 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. lt
is difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale was voidable, not void, by reason of the
G fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father
attested it.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

G.S. Appeal dismissed.