High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1894/1991allowed

(O&M) Raj Kishan And Others v. Chauhal Gir And Others

2024-10-16Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl14 pages

! "# #$

%%&& '$( )#(#& *$ #$

$ * ,-&. / $ # %%&&

$ +$0 1# . /

+$(& . / $ # $%

3 4 #/ & # %$ 1(&$ %%& ($ # +(!5 )($ . . -## #&&1 # !(10 4 % 57 # 8$ %%&& )($ / -## # %%& & 57 # $%%& 1 # !(10 $ 6 9 # 5 %$&7 &&- # %& 0&7 )#(#& *$ $% 3 # +& *$ $% 3 #/ 5 1$ # $& % -# $% :4$ #$ # ( %$%$7 0($1 51# 5- ;# ( # %&%& *$ $ :4$ % # ( & # #-/$ 5 0 3 $%%& # 5 &

5#& # %&

<$ # %$ $ # # #$ %&

%& *$. -# - 0!$. )#(#& *$ # +& *$ -# -$ 0$ # & ( $ % & 0($1 51# 5- ( "#$ 3 . =#- 3 4 ( /&&1 *$# *. %$ # !05 $ # 7$ 9 # /$0 # #$ #$ 3 #$01$ - -$ & 0($1 51# 4 5- 0%$ "#$ 3 "#- 3 4 /&&1 *$# * ( # $. # # & 51# 5- * )#. "#$ 1# '&&1 (=#%($ # 7$ 9 # & - %$0% 57 # %& -# # 1 $ 9 #$ /($ > - ($#$ /$$ # 3 - & -# $ 51# 5- # "#$ 3 5( #-/$. # 3 4 9 # & # $ & # <#( & (5 # & - 0( # $/( $$ 9 $ # # <#( &. #

0 +$=#. -# - # ($. # & & # $ & 3 4 %$ %%&& 57 /$( $1$ & # 3 4 -$ &01 #0&/ 5 -$ # $ &

> - /$$ # %& # 3 4 -$ = =-&1 # %& & # ? 51# 5- %( #0 % 5( # 1$ > -(& 5 $&/ # &$ $ 1 # &

4 9 -&& # & /($ # %$ %%&&: 3 4 - (1# # ( 0%&$ ( $ % - &

-$ 0 - & 5#& # 3 4 %$ %%&& # -$ 0. %$&0$7 5! - = # # # ( - #%&&7 0 5$$ # # %& # locus standi & # ( #$ 0$& /$0 # %& -$ > - %&&7 # # 3 4 # 50 -$ # & @( 57 /$( # $1$ & # # %& # $1# $@( # # /$ # % # ( & > - ($#$ /$$ # 3

4 -$ bona fide %($#$. -# # %($# # %$%$7 1 # #$(1# $1$ & . $ /&(5& $ .: (#. # & /($ # -$1 - %$ ($ # ;$$ +$%$7 5! -# $% !$ $7 %$ - & $ $%& - & 57 # %& # -$ 0 & 57 3 4 $0 5$ %$(& # $%&. %%$ # % #&&1 # 5/ & 4 9 - 0 $ 7 &$ $1$1 # 0 - (1#

;# $& )($ / !(10 $ 6 9 0 # ( # %& 11$/ 1 # !(10

$. # %& # & %%& # 8$ %%&& )($ / !(10 $ 4 # %$&7 &&- # %%& $ # ( - %& )#(#& *$ #%& *$ -# $% :4$ # ( & 0($1 51# 5- -#$ # 0 # %%& & 57 %& *$ #(. # ( @( # %& *$ -# $% :4$ #$ - 0 %$(& # !(10 # 8$ %%&& )($ -(& #- # - %$1$%# # !(10 # # ( -## $ $ $ # - -##$ # & 0 57 # #$ # %& /($ <#( & # 7$ 9 - / & - #(. (&&7 $ - /5& # # %& > - 5$/ # ($ # A( $7 *($#% . 6 #$ # ($& 1($ %$ # & # ( & 57 # #$ # %& /($ <#(

& -(& 5 0 5 /5& -(& 5 /:(&&7 ;# %%&& # %$ 1(&$ %%& #/ $& (% # 1 # 8$ %%&& )($ # 1 ($ #&&1

> %$1$%# # !(10 # 8$ %%&& )($. - 5$/ # # & -## - /5& &. 5 / 57 # 0$ # 5$1 ( ( # & -# %$ 4 7$ $ 1 0!$7 5( . # #&&1 # 0 -# # %$. # # & 50 5&( 51 (% # 0$ 8($#$ %$1$%# # !(10. - 5$/

6 # # ( $ % # 5 & 85$($7. 6 -#$ %& *$ /- # %$/ $& # B0 . # & # 0 -# %$ 4 7$ $0 # 1 # 0!$7. -## # # 0-#$ 3/05$ #(. # ( @( %& - #& 5 5$$ 57 &0 $1&7. # ( -# $% %& *$ - 0 ;# %$ %%&& $ & $&71 (% # 1 -(& 5 $&/ # #$ $ %%& & 57 # %& #&&1 # 1

C# $% # $1# %& 3 4 )#(#& *$ # +& *$. - 5$/ # . # ( # 5 & 5$ 1 # 0!$7. #(. # 0 - -# &0 $1&7. #$ ( - $ > %$1$%# 4 # !(10 # 8$ %%&& )($. # 5! $ 57 # %$ %%&&: 3 4 -# $% # 05&7 # ( # 1$( # $& &$1 # & 9 $ 5 &&1&. (&& /. # 5 %$7 # ( #(. # ( - $@($ 5 0 # 1$( &. - 57 # 8$ %%&& )($ # 5! - $! 57 5$/1 # # ( $ % # 5 &. # # #&&1 # & #&& 5 0 5 0%& # ( $ # %($%. $& - %& (% # !(10 # / <# # )($ # Pran Nath and others Vs. Bal Kishan and others $%$ 1959 PLR 394 > /- #

5/ $(0. # %%& # %& - %$&7 &&- > # !(10 -## # 5 #&&1 # %$ 1(&$ %%&

B$ (& $ # %%&& # (50 # # %$ 1(&$ %%& $/ 5 &&- /$7 #$ % 0(# %$(& # %& -(& #- # #&&1 # 5 & 57 # %& # & 4 9 ?( 57 #$ #$ /($ <#( & & # & ?( 57 # ($$ # <#( & /($ 3 4 # %$ %%&& B$ (& $ # %%&& # $& (% # !(10 # AD5& (%$0 )($ & Murugan and others Vs. Kesava Gounder (Dead) through LRs and others $%$ 2019(20) SCC 633 (%%$ # $1(0 # # & $ $@($ 5 %&&7 #&&1 .

# 0 $ #&&1 &$ @( # 0 (1#. # # ( & 57 # %& $/ 5 0 # 1$( & > ($#$ (50 # # %$ %%&& $ bona fide %($#$ # %$%$7 @( %( 5- bona fide %($#$ %$ =1 ?$ # $1# %$0%. # 5& #(& &-7 & /($ # 5 %($#$ $1# %$0%. 0$.

9 %$ 4 7$ #$ 1 # 0!$7 #/ 5 1/ /($ # %$ %%&&: 3 4 57 # 8$ %%&& )($ $ %%& # % # 5 & > (50 # # #$ 1$( &. # %$ %%& $/ 5 &&- # ( # %& $/ 5 0

B$ (& $ # $%. # #$ #. # (50 # # %& # & ( $ % # & 0($1 51# 5- # (. $$ - 0 && # &(1 # # - & -$ ?( 57 #$ #$ # (# (. #&&1 # & 0%& #$ - $ # %& %&&7 #&&1 # & B$ (& $ # $% # (50 # # 8$ %%&& )($ # $1#&7 $& (% # !(10 # / <# # )($ # Pran Nath and others (%$ -# $% # % %$7 # # %%& & 57 # %$ %%&& 5 0

;# )($ # #$ &$ (& $ # %$ # %$( # %%$ 5= -&& # $$ # $& )($

;# (5& @( -## $ $ $ # %$ %%& &&- "Whether the simplicitor suit for possession of land filed by the plaintiffs without seeking any declaration with respect to the sale deeds dated 23.10.1978 and 12.12.1984 could be decreed and the possession could be ordered to be delivered to the plaintiffs without setting aside the said sale deeds?"

;# 5/ (5& @( -## $ $ $ # &1$ $ 1$ @($&7 -$ 57 # !(10 # AD5& (%$0 )($ # Murugan and others (%$ > # . # AD5& (%$0 )($ # #$ ( -## $ $ $ ( 3

# - EC##$ -#( %$71 $ 1 # & . # ( $ &$ % - 05& $ FG $ $1 && # % &- # %. # AD5& (%$0 )($ 5$/ # # &. -## -$ /5&. # # 0$ $ # 5#&. -$ $@($ 5 5$ $& $ % (& 5 &0 57 # %& ( & 5#& # %& -#( =1 %$7$ $ 1 # & -. #(. %$%$&7 $0 (& #/ 5 $ > # 5/ &. # (% 57 # %& #$ - # <&$0 # (#$7 ?( # & 5#& # 0$

# %& $ %% # ( 57 # #$ - # # # %& (& & ( $ &$ -#( %$71 $ 1 # & /- # 5/ . # ( # 5 #$5/ - $0 57 # AD5& (%$0 )($ $ $1 # &-. # ( - /($ # #$

> # 5/ . # AD5& (%$0 )($ # & $ # %$/ $& # B0 -## %$/ # %$ #$ 7$ $ 1 # $$

%$%$7 0 57 # 1($ -$. - $ $0 # 7 # -$ 0!$7 H/ # %$/ A( $7 *($#% . 6 0$ 4 -## %$/ # 7 %& 00/5& %$%$7 57 ($& 1($. $/ (5 $ (5 # - /5& # # 0$ $ 7 %$ &01 ($ #0. -$ & $ - 5$/ # # $$ 00/5& %$%$7 0 57 # ($& 1($ # (# (. # 0 - /5& # # 0$ $$ / # 0. # 0$ - $@($ %&&7 = &$ $ 1 # & -# %$ #$ 7$ $0 # # 1 0!$7 &/ %$ # !(10 % 57 # AD5& (%$0 )($ # Murugan and others (%$ $%$( #$5&- "1 to 5 xxx xxx

6. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and pleadings on record, following are the issues, which arise for consideration in this appeal:+ 6.1 (i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs+appellants was barred by limitation?

6.2 (ii) Whether without praying for setting aside the sale deeds executed by Balaraman, the suit for declaration and possession was maintainable?

6.3 (iii) Whether the plaintiffs can successfully contend that by execution of release deed dated 24.03.1986 by Lakshmi Ammal, sale deeds executed by Balaraman were successfully repudiated?

7 to 12. xxx xxx Issue No.2

13. In the present case, there is no dispute that sale deeds executed by Balaraman on behalf of himself and his minor son Palanivel were executed without obtaining permission of the Court. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, which is relevant is as follows:8

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 realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

(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 (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.

(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or sub8section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.

(4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub+section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.

(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the court under sub+section (2) in all respects

as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular+ (a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof.

(b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub+sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and (c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub+section (2) of this section to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that court.

(6) In this section, "Court" means the city civil court or a district court or a court empowered under section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate." 14 to 19. xxx xxx

20. The alienations, which were voidable, at the instance of minor or on his behalf were required to be set aside before relief for possession can be claimed by the plaintiffs. Suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs without seeking prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was, thus, not properly framed and could not have been decreed.

21. to 27. xxx xxx

28. This Court time and again held that setting aside of a sale which is voidable under Section 8(3) is necessary for avoiding a

registered sale deed...................We in the present case are concerned with disposal of immovable property by natural guardian of minor by a registered sale deed, hence, we are confining our consideration and discussion only with respect to transfer of immovable property by a registered deed by a natural guardian of minor.

29. The Limitation Act, 1963 has been enacted by the Parliament after the enactment of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for limitation "suits relating to decrees and instruments". The Limitation Act contemplates suit to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward for which limitation is contemplated as three years. Article 60 of the Limitation Act although provides for a limitation of a suit but also clearly indicates that to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward a suit is contemplated.

30. to 34 xxx xxx

35. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that in the present case it was necessary for the person claiming through minor to bring an action within a period of three years from the date of the death of the minor to get sale deed executed by Balaraman set aside. We, thus, conclude that the sale deeds executed by Balaraman were not repudiated or avoided within the period of limitation as prescribed by law. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

36. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly."

> # %$ . %( # # %& # & 0%&$ ( $ % &$ -# $% # & 4 9 # 5 (1# > & %( # # $ & 4 9 - $

4 57 # #$ # %&. -# - #$ ($& 1($ #(. # & 0 57 # #$ - 5 /5& # # %& - #$ / $ (&&7 - #(. $@($ 5 %&&7 #&&1 ;# 8$ %%&& )($ # ( # # & - 0 57 # #$ -# - #$ ($& 1($ # ($#$ 5$/ # # & - &7 /5& (&&7 # 1 /($ # %$ %%&&: 3 4 # (5! 0$ #&&1 # & $ # 5 #- 5 %$/$ $ &&1& ;# 1 # 8$ %%&& )($ # # #$ - $@($0 = $& &$ -# $% # & # ( & 57 # #$ # %& /($ <#( & # 7$ 9 & # (5@( & /($ 3 4 57 # ($ # <#( & # 7$ 1 # &- & - 57 # AD5& (%$0 )($ # Murugan and others (%$ #(. $/ 5

# 1$( &. # !(10 # 8$ %%&& )($ 4 $/ 5 # ( & 57 # %& $/ 5 0 > -(& 5 $&/ # 3 4 . # %$ %%&& $ 5 %($#$ # %$%$7 @( # %($# # 0 # 7$ $ %71 /&(5& $ .: # %($# $0 # ($$ <#( & -# # %($# # %$%$7 $0 # #$ # %& # 7$ 9

# #$ #. # %& $ &01 #$ $1# # 5

# $1# %$0% 51 # /$ > %( 5- # 5 %($#$ %$ =1 # $1# 1 # & 57 ?$1 # $1# %$0%. # )($ -(& &-7 & /($ # 5 %($#$ #(. 5# &- -&& @(7. # ( & 57 # %& $/ 5 0 # & /($ # 3 4 $/ 5 (%#&

;# (5& @( &- $0 %$ # !(10 #(. -$ /($ 3 4 1 # %& #& # 0%&$ ( $ % & & 57 # %& -#( =1 7 &$ -# $% # & 4 9 05& (& 5 $ # % # ( & (& 5 $$ 5 &/$ # %& -#( 1 # & $1&7. # %$ 1(&$ %%& & 57 3 4 &&- # !(10 # 8$ %%&& )($ 4 # ( & 57 # %& 0

&& # %1 0&&( %%&. 7. #&& % /- # 5/ !(10

!"#"#

Pawan $%&'%&()*&+,-./0(&+)1.&23 &)01 $%&'%&((&*1('+45&3 &)01