oppn parties Limitation Act And Sale Of Minor's Property

News Snippets

  • MS Dhoni decides to take a two-month break, will skip West Indies tour but will not retire
  • Phagu Chauhan is the new Governor of Bihar while Ramesh Bais has been appointed as that of Tripura
  • Governors: Anandiben Patel shifted from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh and Lalji Tandon from Bihar to Madhya Pradesh
  • Naga talks interlocutor RN Ravi appointed as Governor of Nagaland
  • Noted lawyer Jagdeep Dhankhar appointed as new Governor of West Bengal
  • 84 NDRF teams have been despatched to 23 states to tackle the flood situation
  • Three persons lynched in Bihar after being accused of cattle theft
  • Delhi police seize a consignment of 1500 kgs of heroin and busts a cartel of Afghanistan-Pakistan narcotics dealers with links to the Taliban
  • Supreme Court gives 9 more months to complete the Babri Masjid demolition case trial
  • Priyanka Gandhi not allowed to meet the families of the dead in the Sonabhadra firing, arrested
  • ICC inducts Sachin Tendulkar in [email protected]@@s Hall of Fame
  • Stock markets bleed for the second day. Sensex crashes 560 points
  • S Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, says Pakistan should release and repatriate Kulbhushan Jadhav immediately
  • Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala asks the Speaker to hold the trust vote latest by 1.30 pm today
  • The Government sends a list of 24 questions to mobile app company that runs video app TikTok seeking answers for anti-national and obscene content carried on the platform
Former Delhi CM and senior Congress leader Sheila Dikshit dies following a cardiac arrest. She was 81
oppn parties
Limitation Act And Sale Of Minor's Property

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
The Supreme Court has held that when a father sells property owned and in the name of his minor child without a court's permission, the contract is voidable but not void. It has also held that no remedy is allowed to either the minor on attaining majority or to anyone representing the minor after his death if a suit for setting aside the sale deed for such property has not been made within the three year time limit prescribed under section 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the benefits of 12 years under section 65 of the said Act are not available in such cases.

The case before the court was of a father who sold the property owned by his minor son in 1981. He also conveyed the sale deed to the purchaser. The father died in 1983. The minor son also died in 1986 while still a minor. In 1986, the mother of the minor executed release deeds for the same property in favour of cousins of the minor, who were the plaintiffs in the present case. Citing the release deeds executed by the mother, the plaintiffs filed a suit in 1992 for a decree in their favour against the defendants, who were the purchaser of the property.

The trial court decreed the property in favour of the plaintiffs. But on an appeal by the defendants, the appellate court reversed the decision, saying that the three year period of limitation had passed. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court but the apex court upheld the appellate court’s order and denied them any relief.

Two laws apply in this case. Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, while property can be purchased and held in a minor’s name, permission of the court is required to sell such property. If at all such property is sold, the contract is not void but voidable, as pointed out by the Supreme Court. This means that an application has to be made in an appropriate court by the minor’s representatives within the period of limitation for setting aside the sale deeds. In the instant case, no such application was made.

Then, there is the question whether the time period of limitation, in this case, will be three years under section 60 of the Limitation Act or twelve years under section 65. Section 60 clearly states that as per sub-section a, the minor has three years from the date of attaining majority to get the deed set aside and as per sub-section b(1), when the minor dies before attaining his representatives have three years from the date the minor died. In the instant case, since the first suit was filed in 1992 and the minor died in 1986, the time allowed under the limitation act had expired and there was no remedy. The release deeds executed by the mother were void.

The court held that section 65 was not applicable in this case. It said “now, coming to Article 65, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants. The said period of limitation is available when suit is filed for possession of immovable property on any interest therein based on title. The present is a case where by registered sale deeds the property was conveyed by the father of the minor was eonominee party. Thus, when sale deed was executed by Balaraman he purported to convey the right of the minor also. The sale deeds being voidable and not void, plaintiffs cannot rely on Article 65.”