PANNI LAL versus RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 05-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PANNILAL 
v. 
RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
MAY 5, 1993 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.P. UHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Tire Hindu Minority and G11ardianslzip Act. 1956: Section 8-lntent 
of-Whether protects rlze property of a 111i11orfro1111/ze depredations of rlze parents 
even. 
Words and Phrases-Voidable and Void-Sale oftlze property of the minor 
by his 111otherwitl1011t permission of the court ancl a/tested by tlzefather-Whetlzer 
voidable or void. 
A 
B 
c 
Sale of rlze property of rlze minor by lzis mother and attested by liis 
fatlzer-lnterpretation of-Whether amounts to a sale by the nat1iral guardian of D 
the minor for legal necessity and benefit of the minor. 
The mother of the re'spondent minors, acting as their guardian, sold 
their land, while they were still minors, to the appellant under a registered sale 
deed dated July 30, 1964. The respondent.<;, upon attaining majority, sued the 
appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof, 
having been made without the permission of the court, was void. 
The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the · 
suit contended that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the 
respondent'i and the sale should, therefore, be deemed to have been a sale by 
the legal guardian of t,1e respondent<;. It was also pleaded that the sale had 
been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. It was also alleged 
that the suit was barred by limitation because the sale was voidable and not 
void and the suit had not been brought within three years of each of th.e 
respondents attaining majority. 
The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion 
that it had not been prm·ed that the sale was for legal necessity or for the 
benefit of the respondents, that the sale by the respondent's mother without 
the permission of the court was void, and the sale was void and not voidable 
and the suit was, therefore, in time and was decreed .. 
589 
E 
F 
G 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appeal filed b}· the appellant before the Additional Distt. Judge and , 
B 
c 
the High Court failed. 
The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this court, 
HELD : 1. The provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and 
Guardianship Act, 1956 are devised to fully protect the property of' a minor, 
e\•en from the depredations of his parent<>. Section 8 empowers onl~· the legal 
guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property provided it is for the 
necessity or benefit of the rninor or his estate and it further requires that such 
alienation shall be etlccted after the permission of the Court has been 
obtained. 1 ·:·· · 
2. [twas difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale, by reason of the fact 
that the mother of the minor respondents signed .the sale deed and the father 
D 
attested it, was \'oidahle, not void. (592-G) 
E 
3. The attestation of the sale deed by the father showed that he was very 
much existent and i!l the picture. If he was, then the sale by the mother, 
notwithstanding the fact that the father attested it, cannot be held to be sale 
by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8. 
.(592-E) 
Jijabai Vitlwlrao Gajre v. Pathankhan & Ors. AIR 1971SC315, distinguished. 
(662-A) 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2198 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and order dated 17 .12.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in R.S.A No. 1155 of 1977. 
G 
S.M. Ashri for the Appellant. 
Ms. Kawaljit Koc~ar for J.D. Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ff 
BHARUCHA, J. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and 
PANNI LAL v. RAJINDER SINGH [BHARUCHA, J.] 
591 
order of the Punjab & Haryana High Coun dismissing the appeal filed before it by 
the appellant. 
The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas ofland at village.Qayampur. The said 
land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh, the respondents, and was 
sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal, acting as their 
guardian, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 30th July, 1964. Upon 
attaining majority the respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said 
land on the ground that the sale thereof having been made without the permission 
of the court was void. The appellant in his written statement and at the time of 
hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed 

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