Justice A K Sen, Justice B Chakraborti
- Can the sale of a suit property inherited by the minor carried out by the de facto guardian?
- Is the sale valid if not ratified by the minor on attainment of the majority?
- Which sale deed shall prevail of the same property as to before or after attaining majority?
Enroll in the Course on: Complete Hindu Laws MasterClass - Click Here
- The appellants filed an appeal seeking declaration for the title of the partition of suit property of the minor.
- Before the institution of an appeal, the appellant were the defendents where decree was passed in favour of the then defendant of the appellate decree.
- The guardian of the minor that is the grandmother had sold the inherited property of the minor to the defendant to meet expenses of loan of partition suit and the medical expenses of minor.
- The minor on attaining majority executed a sale deed with the appellants.
· It was contended that the sale transaction entered is valid and the ownership of the suit property belongs to him.
- The respondent supported the appellate decree passed in his favour that the suit property was sold by the guardian to him before minor attaining majority.
- So, he was the owner of the suit property and appellants contentions are baseless.
The Court held that "the minor on attaining majority did not ratify the sale deed executed by his defacto guardian with the defendant and entered into a sale deed with the appellant. Furthermore, decree passed by the Court of appeal below stands modified to the extent following: The plaintiff’s suit be decreed in part in preliminary form. His 1/3rd share in plots 4945, 4949 and 4950 is declared while it is further declared that the plaintiff has 2/3rd share in the other 5 plots, namely 4885, 4886, 4941, 4766 and 294. Defendant No. 1 be declared to have 2/3rd share in the 3 plots, 4945, 4949 and 4950 and 1/3rd share in plots 4885, 4886, 4941 and 294. It be further declared that the defendant Nos. 3 to 10 have the remaining 1/3rd share in plot 4766 by virtue of their purchase from, defendant No. 1. The parties are directed to effect partition by metes and bounds in their charges as aforesaid in terms of the order of the learned Judge in the trial Court. The prayer for partition in respect of plots 4882, 4884 and 4519 stands dismissed. Par-tics do bear their costs in this Court".
-Para 15 (Hari Satya Banerjee & Ors. v. Mahadev Banerjee & Ors.)