RAMADAS MENON Vs. SREEDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred by a Division Bench with regard to the interpretation of S.8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Relevant portions of S.8 of the Act are as follows:

(2.) Question raised is whether alienation of immovable property by natural guardian without obtaining permission of the court is void or voidable. The appeal arises from O.S. No. 493 of 1988 of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and give possession of one share to the plaintiff with mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belonged to her father Cherodath Achutha Menon. After his death, the property devolved on the plaintiff as well as her mother. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property was sold by sale deed No. 1704/79 at the time when the plaintiff was a minor. The sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs mother in favour of the defendant, who is none other than the brother of the mother. The plaintiff states that the sale of the property was without getting the consent of the court and without any legal necessity.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff and contended that the sale deed is valid. The court below raised relevant issues. The two issues relevant for our purpose are issue Nos. 1 and 5. The first issue is: Is not the sale deed No. 1704 of 1979 void as regards the plaintiffs share in the plaint schedule property is concerned for want of courts sanction under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the other issue, Is the suit barred by limitation