Property Rights and Limitation: Supreme Court Rules on Guardian’s Unauthorized Sale

The case of Murugan & Ors. vs. Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. LRS. & Ors. revolves around an important legal question concerning property rights, inheritance, and the limitation period for challenging the sale of a minor’s property by a natural guardian. The Supreme Court of India examined whether the sale executed by the minor’s father without prior court approval was void or voidable, and whether the legal heirs could challenge the sale after the minor’s death.

The core issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs (legal heirs of a deceased minor) could file a suit for possession without first seeking to set aside the sale deed executed by the minor’s father. The judgment clarifies the applicability of limitation laws and the process for repudiating a sale made by a natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Background of the Case

The property in question originally belonged to Petha Gounder, who had two sons, Kannan and Balaraman. He executed a will on 17.05.1971, granting life interest in the property to his sons and stipulating that the property would pass to their male heirs.

Following his death on 28.11.1971, his son Balaraman sold portions of the property while acting on behalf of his minor son, Palanivel, through sale deeds dated 15.12.1981, 30.03.1981, 31.03.1981, and 29.03.1982. These sales were executed without obtaining prior court approval, as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

Palanivel passed away in 1986 while still a minor, and his mother, Lakshmi Ammal, executed a release deed in favor of Kannan’s sons, the plaintiffs in the present case. The plaintiffs then filed a suit in 1992, seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the property from the purchasers.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, Murugan & Ors., argued:

• The sale of the minor’s property by his father, Balaraman, was executed without court approval and was therefore void.
• The limitation period for challenging such a sale should be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which allows 12 years for possession claims based on ownership.
• The release deed executed by the minor’s mother constituted an implicit repudiation of the unauthorized sale, rendering the transactions null and void.
• Since the plaintiffs were legal heirs of Palanivel, they were entitled to recover possession without the need to first seek cancellation of the sale deeds.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, who were the purchasers of the property, contended:

• The sale deeds executed by Balaraman on behalf of his minor son were voidable, not void, under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
• As per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, a suit to set aside the sale should have been filed within three years of the minor attaining majority, or in case of the minor’s death, within three years from the date of death.
• The plaintiffs failed to challenge the sale deeds within the prescribed limitation period, making their claim legally unsustainable.
• The plaintiffs could not bypass the requirement of setting aside the sale deeds before seeking possession.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Limitation Act to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claim was time-barred. Key observations included:

“Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act clearly states that a disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of the legal requirements, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.”

The Court emphasized that sales executed by a guardian without prior court approval are not void but merely voidable. This distinction is crucial, as voidable transactions require legal action to be annulled:

“If in law the plaintiffs were required to have the sale deeds set aside before making any claim in respect of the properties sold, then a suit without such a prayer was of no avail to the plaintiffs.”

The Court further held that the plaintiffs could not rely on Article 65, which applies to ownership-based possession claims, because the transactions in question were voidable. Instead, the limitation period was governed by Article 60, which mandates a three-year period for challenging the guardian’s sale.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The sale executed by Balaraman was voidable and required a formal challenge within the prescribed limitation period.
• The plaintiffs failed to file a suit to set aside the sale within three years from the minor’s death in 1986.
• Since the sale deeds were never legally challenged and annulled, the plaintiffs’ suit for possession was not maintainable.
• The appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the High Court, which had ruled in favor of the respondents, was upheld.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms that transactions involving a minor’s property executed by a guardian without court approval are voidable, not void. The ruling clarifies that legal heirs must challenge such sales within the statutory limitation period to establish their rights. The decision underscores the importance of timely legal action in property disputes and upholds the principle that voidable transactions must be formally set aside before any claim for ownership or possession can be enforced.

Petitioner Name: Murugan & Ors..
Respondent Name: Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. LRS. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 25-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Murugan & Ors. vs Kesava Gounder (Dead Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category