void ab initio - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales

1Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales

The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a minor's property by a natural guardian without court permission is voidable. The minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate this transaction not only by filing a suit but also through unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed, within the prescribed period of limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around Plot No. 57, originally owned by three minor sons of Rudrappa. In 1971, their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, sold this plot to Krishnoji Rao through a registered sale deed without obtaining prior permission from the court. Later, in 1993, Krishnoji Rao sold the same plot to Smt. K. Neelamma. Meanwhile, after the minors attained majority, they, along with their mother, sold the very same Plot No. 57 to K.S. Shivap...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant's possession became adverse. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. The...

Doctrine of Severability: Supreme Court Says Don’t Punish the Innocent for Administrative Lapses

The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, holding that procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees do not render appointments void if made against sanctioned posts by competent authority. The doctrine of severability applies to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16. Natural justice mandates individual scrutiny before termination. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were initially appointed to Class-IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. Subsequently, they applied for and were selected for Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) through an internal recruitment process in 2009, pursuant to a standing order. Their appointments were f...