SUDISH PRASAD & ORS. versus BABUI JONHIA ALIAS MANORAMA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 07-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 1 S.C.R. 801 
SUDISH PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
BABUI JONHIA ALIAS MANORAMA DEVI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1012 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Suit - Title suit - Plaintiff claiming title over the property 
left by her father - Allegation that defendant appointed as 
guardian of her father was in possession of the property even 
C 
after the death of her father- Plea that after the mother of the 
plaintiff remarried after her father's death, plaintiff became the 
sole owner- Defendant stating that he was not in possession 
of the property and that some portion of the property was orally 
gifted to him by the father of the plaintiff - Trial court partly D 
decreed the suit holding that she was entitled to only half 
share, as for half share her mother acquired the right of widow's 
estate and that she was not entitled to the part of property 
gifted by her father to the defendant - First appellate Court 
affirmed the decree - Division Bench of High Court set aside 
E 
the decree holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the entire 
property - On appeal, he(d: Plaintiff was entitled to decree in 
her favour - Defendant No. 1 was in the helm of affairs 
pertaining to the property for the benefit of widow and the 
plaintiff after the death of the owner and for the benefit of F 
plaintiff after the civil death of the widow (due to her 
remarriage) - The claim of defendant by way of oral gift has 
no sanctity. 
Plalntlff-respondent No. 1 field a suit for title over the 
suit property. The case of the plalntlff was that the suit 
G 
property orlglnally belonged to her father 'S'. The 
~ property was being managed by defendant No. 1 as he 
was appointed as guardian of 'S' by the Court. Defendant 
No~ 1 taking advantage of his position, got executed two 
801 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A 'zerpesgi' deeds, one in favour of his nephew 'M' and 
another in favour of one 'D' without any consideration. 
After the death of 'S', the property was in possession of 
his widow 'P' and the plaintiff was a minor. After 2 to 3 
months of the death of 'S', 'P' married 'M', and after the 
B remarriage, plaintiff inherited the suit property. Defendant 
No. 1 was still in possession of the property. 
The defendants contested the suit, stating that 'S' 
had taken possession of his property after attaining 
C majority. 'S' orally gifted some part of land to defendant 
No. 1 in lieu of his services as guardian and also for 
performing shraddh of his mother, and that 'zerpeshgies' 
were genuine transactions. 
Trial court decreed the suit in part holding that 
D plaintiff was entitled to half share in the property and for 
half share her mother 'P' acquired the right of widow's 
~ 
estate by adverse possession. The Court also held that 
plaintiff was not entitled to recover the possession of that 
part of the property which was orally gifted by 'S' to 
E defendant No. 1. 
Single Judge of High Court affirmed the judgment of 
trial court. In LPA, Division Bench of High Court uet aulde 
the decree pasued by courts below and declared title and 
F owneruhlp of the plaintiff In respect of the entire suit 
property left by 'S'. Hence the present appeal by 
defendant-appellant. 
Olumluulng the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. Once a peruon lo appointed by the Court 
to be a Guardian of the property of ward, he lo bound to 
deal with the property au carefully ao a man of ordinary 
prudence would deal with It, If It were hlu own property. 
He lo bound to do all actG for the protoctlon and benefit 
H rof the property. A Guardian appointed by court cannot 
SUDISH PRASAD & ORS. v. BABU! JONHIA ALIAS 803 
MANORAMA DEVI & ORS. 
deal with the property by way of sale, mortgage, charge 
A 
or lease without the permission of the court and against 
the interest of minor. A Guardian stands in a fiduciary 
relation to his ward and he is not supposed to make any 
profit out of his office. On being appointed as Guardian 
of the property of minor, he is to act as a trustee and he 
B 
cannot be permitted to gain any personal profit availing 
himself of his position and such action of the Guardian 
while dealing with the property against the interest of 
ward would be voidable in the eye of. law. [Paras 12 and 
13] [811-B-E] 
C 
2. Defendant No. 1, immediately after the 
appointment as Guardian of 'S' started dealing with the 
property against his interest. Not only he entered into a 
compromise in a suit filed

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