SAROJ versus SUNDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 25-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 372 
SAR OJ 
v. 
SUNDER SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10582 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHA.YA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - s. 8(3) -
C 
Sale of share of minor daughters - By their natural guardian 
(mother) -Without permission of the Court - Propriety of -
Held: The property even if sold for welfare of the minors, by 
the natural guardian, if sold without permission of the Court, 
would be voidable at the instance of the minor. 
D 
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against her mother 
(respondent No.2) and respondent No.1, for declaration 
that the sale deed whereby respondent No.2 sold the 
property in question to respondent No.1, was null and 
void. The case of th~ plaintiff was that her father died 
E 
leaving behind the property in question when the plaintiff 
and her two sisters (proforma respondent Nos. 4 and 5) 
were minor. Since the mother and the three sisters had 
equal share in the property, the mother had no right to 
sell their shares without permission of the Court. Stand 
F 
of respondent No.2 was that she, as a natural guardian, 
was competent 'to sell the property, as the same was sold 
in order to take care of the minor daughters and for their 
livelihood. Trial court dismissed the suit. High Court, in 
first appeal, confirmed the order of trial court. Hence the 
G appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: .1. As per clause (a) of sub-section (2) of 
H 
372 
SAROJ v. SUNDER SINGH 
373 
Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 
A 
no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged 
or charged, or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or 
otherwise, without the previous permission of the Court. 
Under sub-section (3) of Section 8 disposal of such an 
immovable property by a natural guardian, in 
B 
contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of 
Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any 
person claiming under him. In the present case, though 
it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper 
benefit of the minors, their protection, education and c 
marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that 
previous permission of the Court was obtained by the 
natural guardian before transfer by sale in question. 
[Paras 11 and 12] [378-H; 379-A-C] 
2. _Where the father dies leaving behind only minor 
D 
daughters and their mother as natural guardian, the 
share of the daughters became definite; the question of 
family partition retaining the character of joint Hindu 
Family property does not exist. In the present case, after 
E 
. the death of the father, the property has been shared 
amongst each member of the family and recorded in the 
mutation register having 1/4th share each. In such 
circumstances, the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 
8 shall attract as the mother sold the property without 
previous permission of the Court. Hence, both the sale 
deeds executed by the second respondent in favour of 
the first respondent shall become voidable at the instance 
of the minor i.e. the appellant and the Proforma-
respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Accordingly, the suit stands 
decreed. [Paras 13 and 14] [379-D-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
10582 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 of the 
F 
G 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 
313 of 2009. 
B 
Vipin Kumar, K.K. Shrivastava, Nitin Kumar Thakur for the 
Appellant. 
Himanshu Gupta, Anil Kumar Tandale, Sunil Kumar Jain 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant 
against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur 
Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 313 of 2009. The 
Appellate Court by the impugned judgment held that there is 
D no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial 
court and affirmed the order of the trial court which dismissed 
the suit preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff seeking 
cancellation of sale deeds executed by the second respondent 
in favour of the first respondent. 
E 
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as 
follows: 
The appellant along with her two sisters (original plaintiffs) 
F happened to be the daughters of respondent No.

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