MADHEGOWDA (D) BY LRS. versus ANKEGOWDA (D) LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 20-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
MADHEGOWDA (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
ANKEGOWDA (D) LRS. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956-Sections 4, 6, 8, 11 and 
12-Alienation.of minor's property by de facto guardian-Validity of-Held, 
is per se illegal and void ab initio-Transferee of such an alienation acquires 
C 
no interest in the property-No need to set aside such an invalid alienation 
by filing a suit-Minor on attaining majority can repudiate the transfer-
Transfer on attaining majority in a lawful manner asserting his/her title is 
sufficient indication of repudiation. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Words and Phrases : 
"Guardian"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 4(b) of the Hindu 
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 
Original owner of the property in dispute died leaving behind his 
two daughter viz. respondent No. 10 and respondent No. 11. When re· 
spondent No. 10 was a minor, her sister, respondent No. 11, acting as her 
guardian, sold her share of the property to the appellant. Subsequently, 
respondent No. 10, on attaining majority sold her share of the property to 
predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 who filed a suit for declaration of 
title, for partition and for delivery of possession. Trial Court dismissed 
the suit holding that respondent No. 10 had no valid title in the property 
on the date she executed the sale deed in favour of predecessor of re· 
spondent Nos. 1 to 9 since her interest in the suit property had already 
been sold in favour of appellant and which had not been annulled by filing 
a suit within three years of her attaining majority. First Appellate Court 
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Trial court. However, on 
second appeal, the High Court holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 
were entitled to half share in the suit property, passed an order for 
partition and delivery of possession. Appellants filed a review petition, 
but was not successful. 
H 
Hence the present appeals. 
290 
\-
r 
. 
MADHEGOWDA v. ANKEGOWDA 
291 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court was justified in decreeing the suit for parti· 
tion and separate possession by setting aside the Judgment of the trial 
Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (301-B] 
1.2. Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 
provides that no person shall be entitled to dispose of or deal with the 
property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de. 
facto guardian of the minor. It is clear from the statutory provisions that 
with the avowed object of saving the minor's estate being misappropriated 
or squandered by any person, by a relation or a family friend claiming to 
be a well-wisher of the minor, Section 11 was enacted to prohibit any such 
person from alienating the property of the minor. Thus, in view of the clear 
statutory mandate, any violation of the prohibition incorporated in Sec· 
tion 11 of the Act is ab initio void. In the instant case, undoubtedly re-
spondent No. 11, sister of the minor is not a 'guardian' as defined in S.4(b) 
of the Act. Therefore, she can only be taken to be a 'de facto guardian' and 
to such a transfer provision of S.11 of the Act squarely applies. 
(297-C-D; 299-C; 300-F] 
Hunooman Persaud Pandey v. Musamut Babooee Mundraj Koonwaree, 
6 MIA 393, overruled. 
Kondamudi Sriramulu v. Myneni Pundarikakshayya etc., AIR 36 (1949) 
FC 218 and Ganayya and Anr. v. Radhabai and Ors., [1997] 11 SCC 332, 
relied on. 
1.3. A transferee of alienation in violation of S.11 does not acquire 
any interest in the property. Such an invalid transaction is not required to 
be set aside by filing a suit or judicial proceeding. The minor, on attaining 
majority, can repudiate the transfer. After attaining majority, if he/she 
transfer his/her interest in the property in a lawful manner asserting his/ 
her title to the same that is sufficient to show that the minor has repudiated 
. the transfer made by the 'de facto' guardian'/'manager'. In the instant 
case, there Is no finding recorded by the trial Court or the First Appellate 
Court that respondent No. 10, the minor after attaining majority had 
ratified the invalid transfer, even assuming that the flaw in the transfer 
could be cured by ratification. (300-H; 301-A-B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
2. Instant case is not a case of alienation of minor's interest in a 'joint 
family 

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