NARAYAN versus BABASAHEB & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 05-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 948 
NARAYAN 
v. 
BABASAHEB & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3486 of2016) 
APRIL 05, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 - Arts.60, 109 and Explanation 2 of s. 7 
- Alienation of suit property made by mother vide ·sale deed dated 
20. 01.1982 - Suit filed by plaintiffs-sons and daughters against 
the mother for partition and declaration that sale deed was not 
binding - JSI plaintiff was 20 years old, 2nd plaintiff was still a 
minor and the plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5-married daughters, were oged 
29, 27 and 25 respectively, on the date of institution of the suit in 
the year 1989 - Suit decreed by trial court -Appellate court, on the 
issue of limitation, held that Art. I 09 applies and limitation 
prescribed is 12 years, thus, suit filed in the year 1989 is within 
/imitation - Said order upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
Quondam minor plaintiff challenging the transfer of an immovable 
property made by his guardian in contravention of s. 8(1)(21 of the 
1956 Act and who seeks possession of property can file the suit 
only within the /imitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Act 
which is three years - Limitation to file the present suit is governed 
by Art. 60 and the limitation is 3 years from the date of attaining 
majority - As per Explanation 2 of s. 7, the manager of a Hindu 
undivided family governed by Mithakshara law shall be deemed to 
be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other 
members of j(zmily only .if he is in management of the joint family 
property- Plaintiffs 3 to 5 though majors as on the date of institution 
of suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of s. 7 as they are not the 
manager or Karta of the joint family - 1st plaintiff was 20 years 
old - Thus, the suit is instituted well within three years of limitation 
{i'Oln the date of attaining majority as envisaged u!Art. 60 - Hindu 
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The instant transaction on the face of it is in 
contravention of the 1956 Act and is not done for legal necessity, 
such transaction is voidable and unless such a transaction is sought 
948 
NARAYAN v. BABASAHEB & ORS. 
to be impeached or set aside, the question of recovery of 
possession of that property does not arise. [Paras 24 and 25] 
(957-C-D] 
1.2 A close analysis of the language of Article 60 would 
indicate that it applies to Suits by a minor who has attained majority 
and further by his legal representatives when he dies after attaining 
majority or from the death of the minor. The broad spectrum of 
the nature of the Suit is for setting aside the transfer of immovable 
property made by the guardian and consequently, a Suit for 
possession by avoiding the transfer by the guardian in violi:ition 
of Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act. [Para 26] [957-E] 
1.3 The Limitation Act neither confers a right nor an 
obligation to file a Suit, if no such right exists under the substantive 
law. It only provides a period of limitation for filing the Suit. A 
quondam minor plaintiff.challenging the transfer of an immovable 
property niade by his guardian in contravention of Section 8(1 )(2) 
of the 1956 Act anit who seeks possession of property can file 
the Suit only within the limitation prescribed under Article 60 of 
the Act which is three years and Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the 
Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. [Paras 28 and 29] 
[957-G-H; 958-A] 
1.4 The High Court as well as the trial court erred in applying 
Article 109 of the Act, where Article 109 of the Act clearly speaks 
about alienation made by father governed by Mitakshara law and 
further courts below proceeded in discussing about the long rope 
given under Article 109 of the Act and comparatively lesser time 
specified under Article 60 of the Act. It is well settled principle 
of interpretation that inconvenience and hardship to a person 
will not be the decisive factors while interpreting the provision. 
When bare reading of the provision makes it very clear and 
unequivocally gives a meaning it was to be interpreted in the 
same sense as the Latin maxim says "dulo lex sed lex'', which· 
means the law is hard but it is law and there cannot be any 
departure from the words of the law. [Para 30] [958-B-C] 
1.5 The limitation to file the instant Suit is governed by 
Article 60 of the Act and the limitation is 3 years from the date of 
attaining majority. However, as reg

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