Summary
The Court upheld dismissal of a title-and-possession suit challenging registered sales made by a natural guardian for himself and his minor son. The sales were voidable and required timely setting aside. As the minor died before majority, Article 60 required action within three years of his death. A later release deed made no reference to the sales and did not repudiate them.
Issues
- Whether Article 60 or Article 65 governed the suit.
- Whether possession could be recovered without setting aside the registered sales and whether the release deed constituted repudiation.
Provisions considered
- Article 60(b)(ii) and Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963The specific three-year period from the minor’s death applied to avoiding the guardian’s transfer. The general period for possession based on title could not bypass the voidable sales. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 29, 35)
- Section 8(1), (2) and (3), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956Registered sales by the natural guardian without court permission were voidable at the instance of the minor or a person claiming under him and required setting aside before the consequential possession claim. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35)
- Section 11, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956The rule concerning invalid transfers by a de facto guardian was distinguished from a natural guardian’s voidable transfer under Section 8. (¶¶ 18, 30, 31)
- Section 119, Indian Succession Act, 1925Postponement of possession behind a life estate did not prevent the testamentary interest from vesting on the testator’s death. (¶ 12)
Held
- The minor’s interest had vested despite postponement of possession behind the father’s life interest. The father’s registered conveyances purported to transfer the minor’s rights as well as his own. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- A natural guardian’s transfer in contravention of Section 8 was voidable, not a nullity that could simply be ignored. A suit seeking possession of the property conveyed by these registered deeds needed the relief of setting them aside. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Article 60 governed the challenge. Since the minor died before attaining majority, the three-year period began on his death; the 1992 suit fell outside that period. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 29, 35)
- The release deed contained no reference to the guardian’s sales and could not be read as repudiating them. Decisions concerning de facto guardians and a validly avoided lease did not cure that defect. (¶¶ 21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The ruling was confined to the registered sales in issue. The Court did not prescribe a suit as the only possible method of avoiding every form of disposal, including other kinds of charges or leases. (¶ 28)
Result
Appeal dismissed; dismissal of the suit as time-barred and improperly framed affirmed.