VISHWAMBHAR Vs. LAXMINARAYANA DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Dattatraya Agnihotri died in April 1961 leaving behind his widow Laxmibai, sons Vishwambhar and Digamber, and daughters, Indumati, Usha, Mangla and Shobha. The suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Dattatraya Agnihotri. At the time of death of their father Vishwambhar and Digamber were minors. Laxmibai was managing the properties left by Dattatraya Agnihotri as guardian of the minors. On 14-11-1967 Laxmibai executed a sale deed in favour of Laxminarayan transferring 4 acres 13 guntas of the suit land for the sum of Rs. 6,000/- and delivered possession to the purchaser. Again on 24-10-1974 she executed another sale deed in favour of Vijay Kumar son of Laxminarayan in respect of 4 acres 13 guntas, a part of the suit land for the sum of Rs. 9,000/- and delivered possession to the purchaser. The sale deeds were executed without any legal necessity and without obtaining permission of the Court as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Digamber attained majority on 5th August 1975 and Vishwambhar became major on 20th July, 1978. Thereafter they filed the suit RCS No. 5/81 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalna, in the State of Maharashtra impleading the purchasers Laxminarayan and Vijay Kumar as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, their mother Laxmibai as defendant No. 3 and their sisters, Indumati, Usha, Mangla and Shobha as defendant Nos. 4 to 7 respectively. The plaintiffs pleaded that the two sale deeds executed by defendant No. 3 on 14-11-1967 and 24-10-1974 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not binding and operative on the legal rights of plaintiff No. 1, and prayed that the said sale deeds be set aside to the extent of his share and the suit for possession of the land under survey No. 515-Area 8 acres 26 guntas situated at Jalna bearing the local name 'Girdharchamala' to the extent of 4/ 7th share be decreed with costs against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs be put in actual possession of their share by dispossessing the said defendants from the land, etc.

(3.) The gist of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that their mother as guardian executed the above sale deeds without any legal necessity and without sanction of the Court. The transfers made by her were void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and they are entitled to ignore the same altogether. In para 4 of the plaint it was averred "the transaction, therefore, is liable to be treated as of no legal validity, right from its inception and the defendant No. 1 never got any title to it under the law". Averment to the same effect was made in respect of the sale deed dated 24-10-1974 in favour of defendant No. 2 in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The plaintiffs pleaded that the purchasers are trespassers on the suit land; that the plaintiffs have a right to recover possession of the suit land from the purchasers within 12 years which they have done. Reliance was placed on Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In para 7 of the plaint it was asserted that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation with reference to the suit transaction for the relief of recovery of possession by way of partition of the suit land. It is relevant to state here that the relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are invalid and inoperative and that the said sale deeds be set aside, were added in the plaint subsequently by amendment.