Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is to be noted that both in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court separate judgments are passed though the suits and the appeals were taken up for consideration together.

5. RSA 193/04 was admitted to be heard by an order dated 03.12.04 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the plaintiff's suit for right, title and khas possession of the suit land and declaration of the sale deed as void and cancellation of the same is governed by Article 60(a) or Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963?

14. Learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court committed manifest error of law in holding the suit to be barred by equitable estoppels as there can be no estoppel against provision of Section 364 of the Mahomedan Law and, in this connection, he places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jalandhar Im provem ent Trust v. Sam puran Singh , reported in (1999) 3 SCC 494 , as well as in the case of Essakkyal Nadar M ichayel Nadar v. Sreetharan Babu and Ors ., reported in AIR 1992 Ker 200 . He has also submitted that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court that the minors attained majority about 8 to 12 years before filing of the suit, that the suit was filed after expiry of the period of limitation, that the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 75/94 failed to establish that the suit land represents the share of the minors and that they had right and title on the same, are perverse. It is submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court failed to take note of the relevant evidence as a result of which the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court is vitiated. It is also strenuously argued that the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court that the defendants in Title Suit No. 75/94 had acquired right, title and interest on the basis of Ext.-3 and Ext.- 5 sale deeds are not tenable in law inasmuch as the sale deeds are void in terms of Section 364 of the Mahomedan Law and, thus, cannot confer any valid right, title and interest. It is also submitted that while the learned Trial Court declined to grant mesne profit, the learned Lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to mesne profit and this goes to show that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Lower Appellate Court. The learned Senior counsel relies on, in support of his submissions, in the cases of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiw ari (Deceased) by L.R s., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 , Yadarao Dajiba Sharaw ane (Dead) by L.R s. v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (Dead) and Ors ., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 404 , Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra , reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 710 .

45. With the execution of the sale deeds and also handing over possession to the purchasers, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 75/94 had been divested of whatever interest they had in the property in question. If a suit is filed for declaration that the sale deed is void on the ground that a de facto guardian had sold the property of a minor, who is professing Islam, it may not be necessary to pray for cancellation of the sale deed as once a declaration is obtained to the effect that the sale deeds are void, the transferees, consequentially, would have derived no right, title and interest over and in respect of the land in question from the very inception of the transaction and the plaintiffs' title would remain intact as if there had been no transfer. A declaration declaring a transaction to be void means that there was no transaction in law.

46. Once it is established in a court of law that a particular property belonged to a minor, whose religion is Islam, and such property was alienated during his minority by a de facto guardian, the transaction would be declared as void provided that any such suit is filed for such declaration within the period of limitation as prescribed. It will not do for anyone to unilaterally proclaim that the transaction is void. Necessary proceedings have to be instituted to obtain such a declaration, because the stamp of nullity does not get affixed on its own in the body of the act. That the act or transaction complained of is a nullity or void will have to be established in a due process after conforming to the requirements under the law and till the same is done, such an act or transaction will continue to have effect. I find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Sarma that because the minors' property was alienated by the de facto guardian, the property did not change hands and the minors continued to be the owners of the property and, therefore, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would come into play and for the purpose of the suit, limitation of 12 years for possession would be applicable. In Title Suit No. 75/94, it was pleaded that the purchasers were in possession and, therefore, khas possession was prayed for. Without a declaration that the transaction was void, khas possession could not have been obtained as possession is only a consequential relief. First of all, a declaration has to be obtained that the sale deeds were void and, that is why in Title Suit No. 75/94, a prayer for declaration of the sale deeds being void was made.