MURUGAN & ORS. versus KESAVA GOUNDER (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 25-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
 MURUGAN & ORS.
v.
KESAVA GOUNDER (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1782 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 25, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts.60 and 65 – Suit property belonged
to one ‘PG’, who had two sons, ‘K’ and ‘B’ and three daughters –
‘PG’ executed Will in 1971 bequeathing life interest to his sons ‘K’
and ‘B’ and thereafter to the two male heirs of his sons – ‘PG’
died – ‘B’ on his behalf and on behalf of his minor son ‘P’ sold
certain portion of the suit property to defendants-respondents in
1981-82– ‘B’ died in 1983, his minor son ‘P’ died on 11.02.1986 –
B’s wife executed registered Release Deed in 1986 in favour of the
plaintiffs-appellants (sons of ‘K’) for consideration – Plaintiffs filed
suit in 1992 on the ground that ‘B’ had no authority to execute the
Sale Deeds on behalf of his minor son ‘P’ and the same were void –
Defendants inter alia contended that the suit was barred by limitation
as it was not filed within 3 years from the death of ‘P’, i.e. 11.02.1986
– Suit decreed – Defendants filed appeal – Allowed – Plaintiffs
filed second appeal in the High Court – Dismissed – Held: Part IV
of the Limitation Act, dealing with suits relating to “Decrees and
instruments”, contains Art.60 – Art.60 although provides for
limitation of a suit but also clearly indicates that to set aside a
transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward a suit is
contemplated – Art.60(b)(ii) refers to a suit when a ward dies before
attaining majority – Present is a case where ‘P’ died before attaining
majority – Limitation to avoid instrument made by guardian of the
ward is 3 years from the death of ward when he dies before attaining
majority – Sale deeds by ‘B’ on his behalf and on behalf of his
minor son ‘P’, executed without the permission of the Court were in
contravention of s.8(2), 1956 Act and hence voidable – Sale deeds
being voidable and not void, plaintiffs cannot rely on Art.65, period
for  limitation under which is 12 years – High Court rightly held
that limitation for suit was governed by Art. 60 and the suit was
barred by time – Alienations being voidable, were required to be set
[2019] 4  S.C.R. 357
                                                   357
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  4  S.C.R.
aside before relief for possession can be claimed by the plaintiffs –
Suit filed by the plaintiffs without seeking prayer for setting aside
the sale deeds was, thus, not properly framed and could not have
been decreed – Sale deeds executed by ‘B’ were not repudiated or
avoided within the period of limitation as prescribed by law – Hindu
Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – s.8.
Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – s.8(3) – Right
under – Of the minor or any person claiming under him – Discussed.
Words & Phrases - “Vested Right” and “Contingent Right” –
Distinction between – Held: Vested right is the subject matter of
s.19 of the 1882 Act while contingent interest is dealt with u/s.21 of
the 1882 Act – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.19, 21.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  Part IV of the Limitation Act, 1963 which deals
with suits relating to “Decrees and instruments” contains Articles
59 and 60.  Article 65 is contained in Part V (suits relating to
immovable properties).  Article 60(b)(ii)refers to a suit when a
ward dies before attaining majority.  The present is a case where
‘P’ died on 11.02.1986 before attaining majority, his date of birth
being 16.07.1978, the limitation to avoid instrument made by
guardian of the ward is 03 years from the death of ward when he
dies before attaining majority. [Paras 7, 8 and 9][366-G; 367-D;
360-A-B]
1.2 The period of limitation under Article 65 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. 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.
First Appellate Court and the High Court rightly held that
limitation for suit was governed by Article 60 and the suit was
clearly barred by time. [Para 11][369-D, E]
1.3  In the present case, there is no dispute that sale deeds
executed by ‘B’ on behalf of himself and his minor son ‘P’ were
executed without obtaining permission of the Court.   Sale deed
in v

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