SURTA SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a transfer of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(1) and (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 can be challenged by way of a suit by the minor only within the prescribed period of three years from attaining majority under Art. 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1961 is the significant question necessitating these two references to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the view of the Division Bench in Pran Nath v. Bal Kishan, AIR 1959 Punj 313 holding unreservedly to this effect.

(2.) The issue aforesaid arises from facts within a narrow compass and it suffices to advert to those in R. S. A. No. 1479/1970. Pritam Singh plaintiff-respondent had instituted the suit on 7th May, 1965 for possession of h of land the ground that his mother Smt. T Kaur, without any right or authority and without the permission of the Court, had sold the suit land on 22nd of May, 1959 in favour of the defendant during his majority. It was further averred that the said (sale of) land was not for his benefit nor in his interest and therefore, void and further that he was 20 years of age at the time of filing the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant-vendees who inter alia pointedly raised the issue of limitation. The trial Court held under issues Nos. 2 and 5 that the plaintiff was above the age 221 years on the date of the presentation of the suit and the same having, therefore, not been brought within three years, of his attaining majority, it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 60 of the Limitation Act. As a necessary consequence the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the leaned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, affirmed the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff- respondent was above 21 years of age at the time of the filing of the suit. However, he took the view that the sale by the mother of the plaintiff as his natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Majority and Guardianship Act (hereinafter called the Act) was wholly void and did not bind the minor nor conferred any authority or legal right in the vendee. Consequently he held that Article 60 of the Limitation Act was not attracted and the suit could be brought within 12 years and was, therefore, within time. The appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent decreed.

(3.) This regular second appear came up for hearing before my learned brother S. P. Goyal, J., sitting singly before whom the view of the learned Additional District Judge was challenged as being in direct contravention of the Division Bench in Pran Nath's case (AIR 1959 Punj 313)(supra) which in turn had been followed in Sukhdev Singh v. Jangir Singh, 1976 Rev LR 101. The correctness of the aforesaid judgment was challenged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and noticing some conflict of precedent on the point the matter was referred for consideration by a larger Bench.