SAROJ vs. SUNDER SINGH .

-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10582 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.27949 of 2012) SAROJ … APPELLANTS VERSUS SUNDER SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T  SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred  by   the   appellant   against   the   judgment   and   order  dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High Court  of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur  in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 313 of 2009. The  JUDGMENT Appellate Court by the impugned judgment held that  there   is   no   illegality   or   perversity   in   the  findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed  the order of the trial court which dismissed the  suit preferred by the appellant­original plaintiff  seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by the  second   respondent   in   favour   of   the   first  respondent.  Page 1 -2 2.   The  brief  facts  giving  rise  to  the  present  appeal are as follows:   The   appellant   along   with   her   two   sisters 

were   minors   when   their   father   Khilluram   expired.  Thereafter, their mother i.e. second respondent, of  course   the   guardian,   sold   out   the   suit   property  which belonged to their father by executing a sale  deed   on   9th   December,   1988.   According   to   the  appellant,   since   the   suit   property   belonged   to  their   father   the   daughters   had   shares   in   the  property, the mother could not have sold the suit  property   to   the   first   respondent.   The   appellant,  therefore,   with   two   other   sisters   (proforma  respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein) preferred Civil Suit  No.6 of 2007 for declaration of the sale deed dated  JUDGMENT 9th December, 1988 as null and void in respect of  the   suit   land.   The   appellant   pleaded   that   the  second respondent as the mother of the appellant  and two other sisters has no right or authority to  sell the suit land, as their shares are   part of  it.   The   sale   of   minors’   property   cannot   be   done  without   obtaining   the   prior   permission   of   the  Court. Page 2 -3 3. The second respondent in her written statement  stated that the appellant and two others were her  minor daughters. She is the wife of Khilluram and 

including   the   shares   of   the   daughters   vide   sale  deed   dated   1st     December,     1988   which   was  registered on 9th December, 1988. The consideration  amount received out of the said sale was spent to  fulfill the requirements of the daughters­   i.e.  appellant     and   proforma   respondent   Nos.4   and   5  herein.   4.   In   a   separate   written   statement   the   first  respondent accepted that the disputed land situated  in   village   Ujjaili,   Tehsil­Kot   Kasim   is   the  ancestral property of Khilluram. After the death of  Khilluram   the   said   suit   land   was   devolved   on  JUDGMENT appellant,   two   other   sisters   and   the   second  respondent jointly in equal shares. The appellant  and the two other daughters were minor and their  mother   i.e.   second   respondent   herein   was   the  natural   guardian.   The   agricultural   work   was   done  jointly by the appellant, two other daughters and  the second respondent. It is stated that the suit  land was sold for proper maintenance of the minor  daughters.  Page 3 -4 5. On   behalf   of   the   plaintiffs­appellant   herein  and two other sisters, Saroj (PW­1), Chandra Kanat  (PW­2)   and   Pop   Singh   (PW­3)   were   examined.   They 

placed on record documents duly exhibited as A­1 to  A­10. 6. Learned   Additional   District   Judge   framed   8  issues.   The   issue   Nos.1   to   3,   5   and   6       were  decided   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff­appellant  herein:  Issue No.7 reads as follows: “7. Whether   the   registered   sale­deeds   of  the land Survey No.5 and 6 made by the  Defendant   No.2   to   different   parties  has been done with the motive to cause  harm and usurp this land of plaintiffs  No.1 to 3, ownership and rights which  is   wrong   and   contrary   to   the  established provisions of law, and the  plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled to  challenge these two sale­deeds against  their interests and rights.” JUDGMENT The   said   issue   was   decided   against   the  plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. The 8th  issue   relating   to   plaintiffs’   entitlement   to   get  relief   against   the   defendant   Nos.1   and   2   was  thereby decided against the plaintiffs.  Page 4 -5 7. By the impugned judgment dated 14th December,  2011 the First Appellate Court also dismissed the  appeal filed against the above order passed by the 

8. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted  that in view of the sub­section (2) of Section 8 of  the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 it  was not open for the second respondent to mortgage  or charge, or transfer by sale, gift of the minor’s  property without previous permission of the court. 9. Per contra,  according to the respondents, for  taking care of the minor daughters and for their  livelihood the respondent was competent to sell the  property.   It   was   submitted   that   the   appellant’s  marriage   was   performed   by   the   second   respondent;  the mother bought a house at Daruhera in the year  JUDGMENT 1995. There was no partition amongst the appellant  other minor daughters and mother with respect to  the   subject   agricultural   land   which   was   looked  after by the mother jointly. Therefore, it was for  all   purposes   the   joint   property   and   not   the  property of minors. Significantly, Ramphal who is  the   real   brother   of   Khilluram   in   his   evidence  stated that ever since the death of Khilluram the  minors   were   being   taken   care   of   by   the   second  Page 5 -6 respondent­mother   for   the   maintenance,   education,  etc.   and   the   second   respondent   performed   their  marriage. It is further contended that the second 

money received from the sale of the subject land  was spent on the minors’ genuine requirements and  she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 10. The trial court while deciding the 7th issue  noticed   evidence   of   other   witnesses.   It   further  noticed that the property was devolved on the wife,  Smt.   Rishal   and   Saroj,   Manoj   and   Sanoj   in   equal  share of 1/4th   each. According to the entries in  the revenue record they were in possession of 1/4th  share of the land. The total amount of both the  sale deeds executed comes to Rs.66,000/­. In the  sale deeds it is mentioned that she is the birth  JUDGMENT mother   of   Saroj,   Manoj   and   Sanoj,   and   is   their  natural   guardian.     For   their   maintenance,  sustenance,   education,   etc.,   the   suit   land   being  unproductive and being in parts,  was sold by two  registered sale­deeds marked as Exh. A­1 and A­2.  It was stated   that the plaintiffs’ share was in  joint account. The mother i.e. second respondent is  the head of the family and she sold this land to  the   defendant   for   the   sustenance,   maintenance,  Page 6 -7 education and marriage of her daughters. In view of  such evidence, the trial court decided the issue  against   the   plaintiffs   and     in   favour   of   the 

Appellate Court. Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the  powers  of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the  said   section     mandates   that   the   natural  guardian has power to do all acts which are  necessary   or   reasonable   and   proper   for   the  benefit of the minor or for the realisation,  protection or benefit of the minor’s estate,  etc. The provision  reads as follows: “8 . Powers of natural guardian.­   (1) The  natural   guardian   of   a   Hindu   minor   has  power,   subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  section,   to   do   all   acts   which   are  necessary or reasonable and proper for the  benefit   of   the   minor   or   for   the  realization, protection or benefit of the  minor's estate; but the guardian can in no  case   bind   the   minor   by   a   personal  covenant.  JUDGMENT (2)   The   natural   guardian   shall   not,  without   the   previous   permission   of   the  court,­   (a)  mortgage  or  charge,  or  transfer  by   sale,   gift,   exchange   or   otherwise  any part of the immovable property of  the minor; or  Page 7 -8 (b)   lease   any   part   of   such   property  for a term exceeding five years or for  a   term   extending   more   than   one   year  beyond   the   date   on   which   the   minor  will attain majority.

(4) No court shall grant permission to the  natural   guardian   to   do   any   of   the   acts  mentioned   in   sub­section   (2)   except   in  case   of   necessity   or   for   an   evident  advantage to the minor. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”     As per clause (a) of sub­section (2) of Section  8   no   immovable   property   of   the   minor   can   be  mortgaged or charged, or transferred by sale, gift,  exchange   or   otherwise   without   the   previous  JUDGMENT permission of the Court. Under sub­section (3) of  Section 8   disposal of such an immovable property  by   a   natural   guardian,   in   contravention   of   sub­ section (1) or sub­section (2) of Section 8,   is  voidable at the instance of the minor or any person  claiming under him. 12. In   the   present   case,   though   it   is   stated  that the property has been sold for the proper  benefit   of   the   minors,   their   protection,  Page 8 -9 education   and   marriage,there   is     nothing   on  record to suggest that previous permission of  the   Court   was     obtained   by   the   natural 

minor   daughters   and   their   mother   as   natural  guardian,   the   share   of   the   daughters   became  definite;     the   question   of   family   partition  retaining the character of joint Hindu Family  property does not exist.  In the present case,  after   the   death   of   the   father,   the   property  has   been   shared   amongst   each   member   of   the  family   and recorded in the mutation register  having   1/4th   share   each.   In   such  circumstances,  the  provision of  sub­section  (3) of Section 8 shall attract as the  mother  sold the property without previous permission  JUDGMENT of   the   Court.   Hence,   both   the   sale   deeds  executed by the second respondent in favour of  the first respondent shall become  voidable at  the instance of the minor i.e. the appellant  and the  Proforma­respondent nos.4&5. 14. In view of the finding recorded above,   we  set aside the judgments and orders passed by  the   trial   court,   First   Appellate   Court   and  Page 9 -10 Second Appellate Court .   Accordingly,  the suit  stands decreed in favour of the appellant and  proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5.  The appeal is 

…………………………………………………………………….J.          (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) …………………………………………………………………….J.           (V. GOPALA GOWDA) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 25,2013. JUDGMENT Page 10