BADRI VISHAL Vs. RAJ NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.21, Barabanki, in Regular Suit No.134 of 1996, by which the plaintiffs suit for cancellation of sale deed was dismissed with costs but Civil Appeal No.5 of 2011 preferred by the defendant has been allowed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside and the suit for cancellation of sale deed has been decreed with costs by learned First Appellate Court who has discussed the entire evidence and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in detail.

(3.) Simple dispute in this case is that the plaintiff was the recorded tenure holder of disputed agricultural plots. Since he was minor, his mother was natural guardian who sold it to the defendants without obtaining any permission from the learned District Judge as required under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It is admitted case between the parties that while executing the sale deed plaintiff's mother did not obtain any permission from the District Judge. The plaintiff after attaining majority, filed suit for cancellation which has already been decreed by the learned First Appellate Court. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amirtham Kudumbah v. Sarnam Kudumban, 1991 AIR(SC) 1256 and Vishambar and others v. Laxminarayana (Dead) by L.Rs. and another,2001 44 ALR 569, which have been relied upon by this court in a catena of judgments. The law is also clear on the point. Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with power of natural guardian. Sub Section (2) of which prohibits a guardian not to transfer any part of immovable property of the minor without previous permission of the Court. The legislature has put a rider on the Courts itself by incorporating Sub Section (4) which says that no Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to transfer except in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. These words denote that if the property has been transferred without permission of the? District Judge for the benefit of minor, he may not challenge it after attaining the age of majority and, as such, such transfer has been made voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him. Sub Section (4) deals with proceedings of application for obtaining permission of the Court in the same fashion as are provided under Section 29 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.