MULLU Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6-2-1978 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Hamirpur dated 30-6-1980.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a number of decisions. Smt. Sursati Devi v. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Basti & Ors. , 1982 All L. J. 1473. In this case, the Court came to a conclusion that alienation of the property by a natural guardian has been curtailed under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for the first time and, therefore, alienation of the property by a natural guardian (in the instant case by the mother) is a voidable document and consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon that question. Emphasis is on paragraph 52 of the said decision. The next decision is Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Nath & Ors. , 1999 (1) JCLR 188 (All) : 1999 (90) R. D. 144 and the third decision is of the Apex Court in the case of Amirtham Kudumbah v. Sarnam Kuduraban, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1256. The Apex Court held that where the property of the minor was sold by his father as his natural guardian to a person without the permission of the Court, the sale could be repudiated within three years after the minor attained majority. The transfer made by the father during his son's minority is voidable at the instance of his son.