Father’s sale of property held in minor son's name as benamidar requires no court permission under Section 8.

The plaintiff’s father (Defendant No. 1) purchased 1.489 hectares of land in 1994 in the name of the plaintiff, who was then a minor aged approximately 7–8 years.

In 1999, the father sold part of this land (1.31 hectares) to Defendants 2 and 3 via a registered sale deed without seeking court permission.

The plaintiff filed a suit in 2008 to declare the 1999 sale deed void under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, claiming the property was his.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding the father was the real owner and the plaintiff a mere benamidar, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

During the first appeal, the plaintiff's application to produce educational certificates as additional evidence was also rejected.

Whether the findings of the 1st Appellate Court regarding the rejection of the application for additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC were perverse?

Whether the findings regarding Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 were perverse?

The court applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which restricts additional evidence in appellate courts unless the party demonstrates due diligence or the court requires it to pronounce judgment.

It relied on Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which requires court permission for a natural guardian to transfer a minor's immovable property but excludes undivided interests in joint family property.

The court further applied the doctrine of Benami transactions as clarified in *Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh* (2007) and *Valliammal v. Subramaniam* (2004), focusing on the source of purchase money and the intention of the parties.

It also cited *Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar* (1996) regarding the Karta’s power to manage joint family property involving a minor’s interest.

Regarding the first issue, the court found no perversity in rejecting the additional evidence because the plaintiff’s educational certificates were within his knowledge and possession since 2002/2004; thus, he failed the "due diligence" test under Order 41 Rule 27.

On the substantive issue, the court analyzed the 1994 purchase and found that the father (Defendant No. 1) provided the entire sale consideration from his own resources and managed all negotiations while the family lived as a joint unit.

Consequently, the plaintiff was a nominal owner (benamidar) and the father remained the real owner.

Since the property was not exclusively the "minor's estate" but was handled by the father as Karta of a joint family, the restrictive provisions of Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act—which require prior court permission for sale—did not apply.

It held that the rejection of additional evidence was proper as the plaintiff lacked due diligence.

It further held that since the father was the real owner and Karta, the sale was valid without court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were concurrent and supported by evidence.