Minors property and partition suit

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 29 January 2020 This query is : Resolved
Mr.A died leaving bhind his wife Mrs. B and 3 childrens namely XYZ.
Mr.A had ancestral property i.e residentiel site nad after the Demise of Mr.A his wife Mrs.B sold the property registered sale deed for to fullfill the basic necessity of the minors and also clear the debt of Mr.A . to the purchaser Mr.MM in the year of 1970 for valuable consideration at the time 3 xyz childrens are minors now the childrens are majors turning 50 .52 years now after 45 years filed a suit for partition seeking sale not binding and made purchaser as one of the party..
whether suit is maintainable?
barred by limitation ?
Any citations in favor of Purchaser?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A mother sold ancestral property in 1970 to meet her minor children's needs and clear debts. Now, 45 years later, the children, having reached adulthood, have filed a partition suit, claiming the sale was invalid. The key legal questions are whether the suit is maintainable, if it's barred by the statute of limitations, and if there are any precedents favouring the purchaser. While the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act states a natural guardian needs court permission to sell minor's property, making such sales voidable, the prolonged delay in challenging the sale after attaining majority raises significant limitation issues.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 29 January 2020
Though XYZ were minor when their mother sold their property received from their father due to his intestate demise during the year 1970 but they kept on mum more than 40-45 years of their attaining majority. Under section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the natural guardian of a Hindu Minor shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, transfer the property by sale. The sale by the natural guardian in contraversion of section 8(2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him as per Section 8(3). Under section 8(4), no court shall grant permission to the natural guardian except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 29 January 2020
Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the transaction which is voidable in terms of Section 8 (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, when validly avoided, relates back to the date of transaction and it is unenforceable from the very inception. The relevant observation quoted in 1993-2-L.W.15 (G.Annamalai Pillai v. The District Revenue Officer & others) (SC) reads as under:-

"We have, therefore, no doubt that when the fifth respondent avoided the lease executed by his father, the fourth respondent, the lease became void from its inception and no statutory rights, could, therefore, accrue in favour of the appellant herein."

Message likes : 1 times

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 29 January 2020
So there is no limitation to get the voidable transaction which is the crux of the query.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 31 January 2020
Limitation expires 3 years after attaining majority by the (then) minor, it can not be "unlimited"..

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries