MEERABAI Vs. RAJARAM KRUSHNAJI RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The suit property was initially owned by one Rangarao Raut who expired on 4/11/1987. He was survived by his widow and five daughters. The widow of Rangarao namely Meerabai has sold the suit property to the defendant vide registered sale-deed dtd. 20/4/1989. Admittedly, permission as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ("Act of 1956") is not sought prior to execution of sale-deed dtd. 20/4/1989. In this backdrop, Meerabai widow and her five daughters filed Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2011 challenging the sale-deed dtd. 20/4/1989 executed by Meerabai in favour of dependant Rajaram. The sale-deed is executed in favouf of defendant by Meerabai for herself and for plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6, her daughters, who were minor at the relevant time. Apart from plaintiffs, mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 is also one of the co-owner.

(3.) As stated above, the sale-deed dtd. 20/4/1989 came to be challenged in the aforesaid civil suit on several grounds including on the ground that the sale-deed was bad in law with respect to share of minor daughters inasmuch as permission under Sec. 8 of the Act of 1956 was not obtained prior to the execution of the sale-deed. Learned Trial Court has decided the suit vide judgment and decree dtd. 7/2/2019. Learned Trial Court has held that the sale-deed was not false or forged document as alleged by the plaintiffs. However, learned Trial Court has held the sale-deed is bad in law since permission under Sec. 8 of the Act of 1956 was not obtained prior to execution of the sale-deed.