DIVYA DIP SINGH AND ORS. versus RAM BACHAN MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DIVYA DIP SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAM BACHAN MISHRA AND ORS. 
· OCTOBER 24, 1996 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956-Section 8(2) & (3)-Sale 
of Immovable property of minors-By natural guardian wi~lwut prior Sanction 
of Court-Whether minors bound by the sale-Held, the sale cannot be ignored 
in the facts and circumstances of the ca~e. 
A 
B 
c 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908---0rder XXXII Rule 3-Court guardian 
appointed during pe11de11cy of Suit-Natural guardian vis-a-vis appointed 
guardian-Right of-Held, the appointment does not take away the right of 
the natural guardian for ever, once the appointment duly discharged, the rights 
of natural guardian revive. 
D 
Respondent No. S, father of the appellants filed a title suit and the 
appellants (then minors) were added as co- plaintiffs. Court guardian was 
appointed for ·them, during the pendency of the suit. Suit ended up in 
compromise and the guardian was discharged. Thereafter respondent No. E 
S managed the affairs of minors as natural guardian and also made an 
application in the above title suit for his appointment as the guardian of 
the minors. Prior to filing of the application, respondent No.Shad already 
sold the suit land to respondent No. 1. Mutation was duly carried out and 
Final Record of Rights was published in favour· of respondent No. 1. 
Appellant No. 1 vide an application in the suit, sought permission of the F 
Court to deal with treasury deposits and saving certificates, since he had 
attained majority on 29.7.66. The application was allowed. Appellants 
wrote a letter to the District Collector (with regard to the sale of suit land 
by their father to respondent No. 1) to collect the balance loan arrears 
advanced against the suit land from respondent No. 1 who had undertaken G 
to discharge the same. 
In 1972, the name of respondent No. 1 was shown as owner in the 
statement published under Section 9A r/w Section 10 and Draft Scheme 
u/s 12 of Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation 
Act, 1956. The appellants did not file any objection to the statements and H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A the Scheme, within prescribed period and the entry of respondent No. 1 in 
Records of Rights became final. Long after the finalisation of respondent 
No. l's name, appellants filed objections that the sale by their father, 
without prior .permission of the Court was illegal, hence not binding on 
them. 
B 
The Consolidation Officer, upheld the objection and in appeal, the 
Appellate Deputy Director (Consolidation) also upheld the decision of 
Consolidation Officer. 
In appeal, the Revisional Authority, held that the sale was not 
C binding on the minors, and that the appellants having approached the 
Court within 12 years from the date of knowledge of the sale, their claim 
was not barred by time. 
A writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1, and the High Court 
held that sale by respondent No. S on behalf of minors cannot be chal· 
b lenged as void and the appellants having not challenged the sale within 
limitation period aft1~r attaining majority, their claim was barred by time. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the sale by 
respondent No. S must be deemed to be sale by stranger, as he could not 
claim to be natural guardian after the appointment of Court guardian and 
E therefore, the sale must be treated as void and that the claim of the 
appellants was not barred by time. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the 
F admitted position that the minors have not challenged the sale within 3 
years from their att11ining majority and having themselves accepted the 
sale by their father by writing a letter to the Collector requesting him to 
collect the loan am~ars advanced against the Suit land, from the pur-
chaser/first respond1mt and appellants having not filed any objections to 
G the statements published under Section 9A and the Scheme published 
under Section 12 ot' Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of 
Fragmentation Act, 1956, within the prescribed period, have no right to 
ignore the sale as void. [711-A·C] 
2. The appointment of guardian in the Title Suit was one under 
H Order XXXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, which will not take away 
.. ,. 
DNYADIPSINGHv. R.B.MISHRA[VENKATASWAMI,J.] 
707 
the right of the natural guardian for ever. Once the guardian appointed 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.