G. ANNAMALIA PILLAI versus DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 17-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,..t.. 
G. ANNAMALIA PILLAI 
A 
v. 
DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS. 
MARCH 17, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 : 
Section 8(2) and (3)-Lease-deed executed by the guardian which was 
voidable-When validly avoided-Makes transaction void abinitio. 
c 
The father or Purshothanan (then minor) respondent No. 5, ex-
~ . .... 
ecuted a registered lease-deed or the land owned by Purshothanan (minor) 
for a period or five years to the appellant/G. Annamalia Pillai. 
The appellant filed an application before the Tehsildar under the D 
provisions or the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record or Tenancy 
Rights Act, 1969 praying to be registered as a tenant in the tenancy 
records, on the basis or the said lease-deed. 
Respondent No.5/Janarthanan contested the said proceeding on the 
ground that the land was his property, his father had no right or title to E 
~ 
deal with the same and the lease deed executed by his rather was contrary 
to the provisions of Section 8 or the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act. 
Further he contended that he had no knowledge or the execution or the 
-
lease-deed by his father and on attaining majority he avoided the same. 
The Tehsildar dismissed the application of the appellant holding F 
that there was no valid lease. 
>-
The Revenue Divisional Officer, no appeal, reversed the findings of 
the Tehsildar and held that the appellant is entitled to be registered as a 
cultivating tenant. 
G 
In revision, the District Revenue Officer set aside the order of the 
,.._ 
Appellate Authority and restored the order of the Tehsildar. 
The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition and the writ 
appeal filed by the appellant. 
H 
'.l97 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
This appeal by way of Special Leave is against the judgment of the 
,.._ 
Madras High Court. 
Appeal dismissed, 
HELD: In the presmt case, the High Court has rightly held that the 
B lease was to go more than one year beyond the date on whith the minor was to 
attain majority. The provisions of Section 8(2)(b) were attracted. [400D] 
c 
Clause (3) of Section 8 of the Hindu. Minority and Guardianship 
Act, 1956, specifically makes the transection voidable. The lease executed 
by the guardian in this case is prohibited and in that sense it was without 
any authority. It was further held that the respondent No.5 avoided the 
lease executed by his father, the lease became void from its inception and 
no statutory rights could, therefore, accrue in favour of the appellant. 
[400F, 401G] 
D 
Solmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition at page 341; Satgur 
E 
F 
G 
Prasad v.Hamarain Das, AIR 1932 Supreme Court 89; S.N.R. Sundara Rao 
& Sons, Madurai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1957 
Madras 451, referred to. [401D] 
G. Ponniah 1hewar v. Nel/avam Penmwl Pillai a11d others, AIR.1977 
S.C. 244, distinguished. [401H] 
2. In the present case the father of respondent No.5 had no authority -
to lease the property without complying with the provisions of Section 
8(2)(b) of the Act. Because of the inherent illegality in the execution of the 
--
lease-deed it was liable to be cancelled at the option of the minor on 
attaining majority. On the exercise of the option the lease became void 
abinition. [402D] 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4792 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1984 of the Madras High 
Court in Writ Appeal No.96 of 1981. 
Sanjeev Madan for Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Appellant. 
H 
A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondents. 
.,,:,, 
, 
G. ANAA MALIA v. DISlT. REVENUE OFFICER [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
399 
k 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The short question for consideration in this 
appeal is whether lease-deed in dispute, which was voidable in terms of 
Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the Act) 
when validly avoided, was affective from the date of the lease-deed so as 
B 
to make the transaction void and unenforceable from the very inception. 
It is not disputed before us that the land in dispute was owned by 
Janarthanan respondent-5 before us. His father Purushothaman by a 
registered deed dated December 12, 1971 leased the land in dispute for a 
period of five years to G. Annamalai Pillai. On the date when the lease c 
deed was executed J anarthanan was a minor, his . date of birth being 
September 27, 1957. Claiming to be a cultivating tenant, on the basis of the 
~, 
'r

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