LAWS(SC)-2004-10-94

NANGALI AMMA BHAVANI AMMA Vs. GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR

Decided On October 07, 2004
NANGALIAMMA BHAVANIAMMA Appellant
V/S
GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which arises for determination in these appeals is whether a sale entered into by the natural guardian of a minor without obtaining the prior permission of the court under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") was void or voidable. Depending upon the answer to this issue, a further question needs resolution, namely, if it is voidable at the instance of the minor, what is the period of limitation within which the minor must file a suit impugning the sale

(2.) The property in question was originally owned by one Karthiayani (referred to as 'k' hereunder). K was allotted the property under a deed of partition of joint family properties, which included the property in dispute. In 1958, K mortgaged the property to one Nangali Amma (referred to as 'n'). In 1959, K died leaving behind her, her husband, Raghavan Nair, and her son and daughter, namely, Gopalakrishnan and Chandramati, respectively. Her children were minors at the time of K's death. One year after K's death Raghavan as natural guardian of the two children, sold the equity of redemption in respect to the suit property, to N's daughter, Bhavani.

(3.) These facts are not in dispute. In 1979, the children of K, namely, Gopalakrishnan and Chandramati (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff-respondents") filed a suit claiming to redeem the property which had been mortgaged by their mother, K to N. N raised the defence that the equity of redemption having already been sold to APs daughter, namely, Bhavani (the appellant before us) , the suit was not maintainable. The appellant was then added as Defendant 2 to the suit. The trial court framed several issues of which three relevant issues for the purposes of these appeals may be noted. The first was whether the sale dated 3-10-1960 was valid or whether it was liable to be set aside; the second, whether the suit was barred by limitation; and the third, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the suit property.