Minor(guardian appointed by court) became 18+ on sale deed
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 23 November 2022
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
Looking for your advise on foll. scenario. A large land parcel was bought in the names of 3 children (C1, C2, C3) by guardian Mother (M) in 1980. Few yrs later in 1989, both father (F) and mother (M) approached court to sell that land parcel into housing plots. Court appointed both father (F) and mother (M) as guardian for children(C1 to C3) property and advised to sell them into plots within 2 yrs and deposit money in court on behalf of C1 to C3. All three children were minor at this time of guardian appointment. But when few house sites were sold in 1991 (within 2 yrs timeframe), C1 has become 18+, but still only F and M had signed the sale deed while selling it to X. C1 didn't sign that sale deed.
Qsts
1) Is the 1991 sale deed valid? Shouldn't C1 have signed the 1991 sale deed as he was 18+ then
2) Now can i buy that property from X ?
Thanks in Advance
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 23 November 2022
To add further info to my qst. C1 was 18 yrs 11 mths at the time of sale deed in 1991
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 23 November 2022
At the time of 1991, C1 became major, he should sign in the document. Now X shall get a Ratification deed from C1 and it should be registered and then you can purchase it from X.
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 23 November 2022
Thank you sir for the response. I've follow up qst. Some say when guardian is appointed by court, minor attains majority age only at 21, not 18. That is where the confusion arisen for the above scenario for me.
Even some old posts in this site suggests so. please review this post and advise.
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/age-of-minor-in-case-of-guardian-appointed-258836.asp
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 24 November 2022
At the time of the sale deed in the year 1991, he became a major and he should have signed in the document.
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 26 November 2022
I'm being advised by a lawyer that whenever court appoints a guardian for minor's property, that minor attains majority only at the age of 21, not 18 yrs. Hence in the above scenario, C1 is considered a minor as he didn't complete 21 yrs yet and needn't have signed the 1991 document. I am told there is a clause in Indian majority act that extends the majority age to 21 for such guardian appointed minor cases. I asked this qst in this forum to take second opinion on that clause.
http://www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT1876.HTM
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 28 November 2022
I'm sorry for being persistent. But with all due respect to the Expert who has responded to my qst, i am not sure if my qst has been answered by expert after taking into consideration the clause in Majority act that i was referring to. I cited two references. One from another post in lawyerclubindia.com and another from Indian Majority act. I don't want to re-open this thread anymore, but i will paste the Indian majority act abstract for other readers of this post for their own perusual.
---------------------------------
http://www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT1876.HTM
Indian Majority Act,1875
3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India. - Subject as aforesaid, [every minor of whose person or property, or both, a guardian, other than a guardian for a suit within the meaning of Chapter XXXI of the [Code of Civil Procedure], has been or shall be appointed or declared by any Court of Justice before the minor has attained the age of eighteen years, and every minor of whose property the superintendence has been or shall be assumed by any Court of Wards before the minor has attained that age] shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the [Indian Succession Act or in any other enactment, be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of twenty-one years and not before.
Subject as aforesaid, every other person domiciled in [India] shall be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of eighteen years and not before.
4. Age of majority how computed. - In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day, and he shall be deemed to have attained majority, if he falls within the first paragraph of section 3, at the beginning of the twenty-first anniversary of that day, and if he falls within the second paragraph of section 3, at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.
Illustrations
(a) Z is born in [India] on the first day of January 1850, and has [an Indian domicile]. A guardian of his person is appointed by a Court of Justice. Z attains majority at the first moment of the first day of January 1871.
(b) Z is born in [India] on the twenty-ninth day of February 1852, and has [an Indian domicile]. A guardian of his property is appointed by a Court of Justice. Z attains majority at the first moment of the twenty-eighth day of February 1873.
(c) Z is born on the first day of January 1850. He acquires a domicile in [India]. No guardian is appointed of his person or property by any Court of Justice, nor is he under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards. Z attains majority at the first moment of the first day of January 1868.
---------------------------------
Another related post in this same site lawyersclubindia.com
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/age-of-minor-in-case-of-guardian-appointed-258836.asp
Guest (Querist) 13 December 2011This query is : Resolved
My question is that age of minor is 18 years according to Hindu Marriage Act. What will be the age of minor if the court appoint guardian.
Shailesh Kr. Shah (Expert) 13 December 2011 guardian appointed by the court, then majority on completing the age of 21 years.
Advocate. Arunagiri (Expert) 13 December 2011 He will be declared as attained majority on 21st age.
---------------------------------
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 28 November 2022
Further info i have obtained on my self research (have proofs).
In 1999, an amendment to Indian Majority act was made to make the majority age uniform as 18 irrespective of minor under guardianship or not. But the same amendment was repealed completely in 2015.
Again, my intention is not to disrespect the experts here. I just wanted to take experts opinions about a contradicting clause in a commonly assumed Majority age.
P. Venu
(Expert) 29 November 2022
To my understanding, the India Code (https://www.indiacode.nic.in) is the repository of all the Central and State Acts. Section 3 of the Indian Majority, as available in the India Code Portal reads as follows-
Section 3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India
1[3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before.
(2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.]
1. Subs. by Act 33 of 1999, s. 4, for sections 3 and 4 (w.e.f. 16-12-1999).
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 30 November 2022
I agree sir... Sec.3 and Sec.4 was amended in 1999 as per your citation. But the same 1999 amendment was repealed in 2015
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/Act17of2015.pdf
It is called "The repealing and amending act, 2015"
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 30 November 2022
"The repealing and amending act, 2015" is available in indiacode.nic.in repository as well. But i am unable to share that link here due to lawyerclubindia site restrictions.
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 02 December 2022
From Ministry of Law and Justice website
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/Act%2017%20of%202015_0.pdf
Page-2
P. Venu
(Expert) 02 December 2022
Please read dispassionately the Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act,2015 -
"4. The repeal by this Act of any enactment shall not affect any Act in which such
enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to;
and this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of anything
already done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or
incurred, or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or discharge of or
from any debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity already
granted, or the proof of any past act or thing;
nor shall this Act affect any principle or rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form or
course of pleading, practice or procedure, or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction,
exemption, office or appointment, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have
been in any manner affirmed, recognised or derived by, in or from any enactment hereby
repealed;
nor shall the repeal by this Act of any enactment provide or restore any jurisdiction,
office, custom, liability, right, title, privilege, restriction, exemption, usage, practice, procedure
or other matter or thing not now existing or in force."
So also, the statement of Objects and Reasons relating to the corresponding Bill -
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Central Government's resolve to bring reform in the legal system of the country, to
make it more accessible to the common man and to imbibe the principles of rule of law, has,
inter-alia, began with the review of enactments which are obsolete, redundant and unnecessary. In fulfilment of this objective, the Central Government has undertaken a comprehensive
review of laws and the legal system with a view to remove incoherent and redundant laws.
2. The primary initiative in this direction was taken to constitute a Committee to review
the laws which are obsolete and redundant and can be repealed. A two member Committee
was constituted for review of obsolete laws for repeal. The said Committee, based on various
Reports of the Law Commission and P. C. Jain Commission, examined the Central Acts which
are not relevant or no longer needed and which can be repealed either in whole or in part.
3. The two member Committee identified 1741 Central Acts out of existing 2781 Central
Acts lying on the Statute-Book as on 15th October, 2014. The Acts identified for repeal by
the said Committee are categorized as (i) 777 Central Acts identified for repeal wholly or in
part; (ii) 83 Central Acts relating to State subjects to be repealed by State Legislatures; (iii)
624 Central Appropriation Acts enacted up to the year 2010; and (iv) 257 Appropriation Acts
enacted by Parliament for the States under President's Rule to be repealed by such states.
The Law Commission, in its 248th, 249th, 250th and 251st Reports on "Obsolete Laws:
Warranting Immediate Repeal", inter alia, recommended for repeal of 289 Acts.
4. As a step forward towards this direction, the Central Government has undertaken
the following initiatives towards achieving its objective to repeal obsolete and redundant
laws. The following Bill, namely, (i) the Repealing and Amending Bill, 2015 (to repeal 35 Acts);
(ii) the Repealing and Amending (Second) Bill, 2015 (to repeal 90 Acts); and (iii) the Appropriation Acts (Repeal) Bill, 2015 (to repeal 758 Appropriation Acts) which have been introduced in Parliament and are at different stages. The Bills at Serial Nos. (i) and (ii) have been
passed by Parliament and Bill at Serial No. (iii) is pending for consideration in Parliament. On
remaining Acts, action for repeal is at different stages.
5. As part of the ongoing initiative of the Central Government, the present proposal is
to repeal 187 obsolete and redundant laws lying unnecessarily on the Statute-Book. An
appropriate saving clause has been incorporated in the Bill. On being enacted, it would
reduce obsolete laws and bring in clarity to those for whose benefit the laws are enacted.
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objectives
New Delhi; D.V. SADANANDA GOWDA
The 11th May, 2015"
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 10 December 2022
Sincerely thank you sir for the response. Does that mean the effect of "The repealing and amending act, 2015" is not retrospective ? is that understanding correct ? i.e it doesn't impact rights before 2015 ?
Or does the above reference convey something else?
======================
My understanding is as follows, where am i interpreting it incorrectly ?
1) Above said scenario involving minors happened in 1991, at which time there was indeed a sec-3 and sec-4 in Indian majority act that stated Minor whose property is appointed guardian by court attains majority only at 21. Infact 1999 amendment act cites the same specifically and proposes to change it to uniform age 18 for all categories
2) Amendment to Indian Majority act happens in 1999 that makes majority age to 18 for all categories. This amendment is not retrospective.
3) Then Repealing and Amending Act,2015 comes in 2015 which repeals many acts in whole manner including the 1999 Amendment to Indian majority act.
My understanding is Both 1999 amendment and 2015 repealing are not retrospective. Hence minor (aged less than 21 and whose property appointed guardian thro Court) not signing 1991 sale deed may not be an issue, especially when 1999 amendment is not retrospective
Thank you all for once again. Appreciate this conversation and learning.
P. Venu
(Expert) 10 December 2022
I am afraid you are sharing ignorance than knowledge; it is misleading, not learning.
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 10 December 2022
OK. what is the synopsis of your citation of "Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act,2015" ? If your time permits and willing, i would like to seek your paid consultation over telephone. Kindly message in private your contact number if you are willing to. Thanks
Senthilnathan
(Querist) 11 December 2022
Court verdicts on related subject
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1048507/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/737345/
P. Venu
(Expert) 20 December 2022
It appears that you are unwilling to abandon your preconceived notions look into the issue with an open mind.
Please try to understand the simple facts-
- The I999 Amendment Act had amended the Indian Majority Act providing that, thereafter, the persons domiciled in India would attain majority on completion of 18 years of age.
- The 2015 Amendment Act repealed the 1999 Amendment Act, but not the amendment carried out in the Indian Majority Act providing the age of majority to be 18 years.
- As such, the age of majority as provided under the Indian Majority Act is 18 years.
Yes, the 1999 amendment is not retrospective.
My contact details could be accessed on the LCI profile.
