oppn parties Limitation Act And Sale Of Minor's Property

News Snippets

  • Former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Akhtar proposes an Indo-Pak ODI series to raise funds for fighting coronavirus
  • Maharashtra government says many Tablighi Jamaat members who attended the Markaz and returned have gone into hiding
  • West Bengal government identifies hotspots in Kolkata and the rest of the state, inclined to extend the lockdown in those places only
  • Prime Minister Modi holds a video conference with floor leaders of opposition parties, hints at extending the lockdown
  • UP seals hotspots and makes masks mandatory
  • Masks made compulsory in Mumbai, violators will be arrested
  • ICMR says an infected person can infect 406 people in 30 days without social distancing and lockdown
  • Stock markets make a smart recovery. Sensex up by record 2476 points on global cues
  • Schools, colleges and shopping malls likely to remain closed for a further period of one month, says empowered group of ministers
  • PM Modi tells BJP workers that India is in for a long battle against the coronavirus and there is no scope to feel tired or defeated
  • PM Modi asks ministers to focus on exports and new areas and sectors
  • PM Modi asks ministers to prepare business continuity plan post the lifting of the lockdown
  • Corona cases in India cross 4000 and the death toll stands at 124
  • The government decides to double the testing of corona suspects from 10000 now to 20000 in the next three days
  • Flipkart assures employees that there will be no job or salary cuts due to the COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19: 773 new cases and 32 deaths in the last 24 hours, reports the health ministry
oppn parties
Limitation Act And Sale Of Minor's Property

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-02-25 22:29:59

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.”