Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the petitioners were minors and in absence of natural guardians, de-facto guardians could not deal with the minors property in view of Section 11 and 12 of the Act of 1956. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Punni Lal Vs. Rajender Singh & Anr. 1993 (SC) 1117, Prem Singh Vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, Kamla Prasad & Ors Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak & Ors (2007) 4 SCC 213 and Tej Bhan Singh Anr. Vs. IX ADJ Jaunpur & Ors. 1994 RD 496 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of Section 8(3) of the Act, the sale-deed dated 10.7.1970 cannot be said to be a void document and it is merely a voidable document.

Counsel for the respondent further contends that since the sale-deed is a voidable document and admittedly the name of respondent no.7 to 11 have been mutated in the revenue records, therefore, the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is not maintainable, the remedy available to the plaintiffs-petitioners was to get the sale-deed cancelled. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments in cases of Ram Awalamb Anr Vs. Jata Shanker & Ors AIR 1969 ALL 526 (F.B.), Vishwambhar & Anr Vs. Laxmi Narayana (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2607, Sursati Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, Basti & Ors 1983 ALL L.J. 1473 (Parag 53) and Ram Padarath and Ors Vs. Second ADJ & Ors 1989 (1) AWC 290 (F.B.).

(d) Whether after the expiry of limitation of three years a minor can sue for setting aside a voidable sale deed and regain property and whether in case of two sons/respondents having attained majority more than three years ago and have not filed suit within three years, the suit to the extent of those sons/respondents is barred by limitation.

The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that no permission is required under Section 8 of Guardianship and Wards Act in respect of sale of agricultural land of minors by his guardians and the sale-deed executed by the mother and brother of the petitioners is not void but a voidable document. Secondly, the suit was filed on 14.6.1988 i.e. after 18 years from the date of execution of the sale-deed and all the petitioners attained the majority as provided in Article 60 of the Schedule of Indian Limitation Act, the limitation for minors for filing the suit for cancellation of sale-deed is three years appears to be barred by limitation and thirdly, the name of the respondents have already mutated in the revenue record and said mutation has not been challenged by the petitioners after they had attained majority and further in view of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act 1966 the suit without seeking the cancellation of the sale-deed dated 10.7.1970 is not maintainable.

From the perusal of the aforesaid section, it is apparent that the previous permission of the competent authority (District-Judge of the concerned district) is required in case of transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian. Admittedly, as per the plaint, no permission was taken by the natural guardian of the petitioners while making the transfer and, hence, in view of Section 8 (3) of the aforesaid Act of 1956 any disposal of immovable property by natural guardians in contravention sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), of the the Act is voidable at the instance of minors or any person claimed under him and therefore, the sale-deed dated 10.7.1970 is voidable document and even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners conceded the said position.