Void vs. Voidable - 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...

Land Sale Void If Society’s Charge Not Cleared: Supreme Court Explains Legal Consequence

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal, affirming that a plaintiff cannot benefit from their own wrong. The Court held that an alienation of charged property, even if voidable, can only be challenged by the aggrieved society, not the member-loanee who committed the breach. Subsequent release of the charge validated the sale, and the reconveyance deed was deemed invalid due to lack of stamp paper, registration, and crucial terms. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from Special Civil Suit No. 49/1973, filed by the original plaintiff, Machhindranath, seeking possession and reconveyance of ancestral agricultural land, Survey No. 30, admeasuring 15 Acres and 17 Guntha, located in Village Kendal Bk., Taluka Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. The plaintiff had obtained a loan from Kendal Bk....