JASMINDER BAWA Vs. HARVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is absolute owner of House No. 225, Sector 6, Panchkula and the transfer dated 13.2.1980 without taking permission of Guardian Court, being illegal, null, void and void ab initio and consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the entire house in question and as well as sought partition of other properties movable and immovable purchased by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the sale proceeds of H.No.224, Sector 6, Panchkula, land, building school in Zirakpur and other showrooms and booths has been dismissed.

(2.) It would be apt to reproduce Article 59 and 60 much less Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) The limitation to cancel such documents is three years when the plaintiffs acquires the knowledge of the aforementioned and as per Article 60, minor/ward can challenge the transfer of the property made by the guardian within three years from the date of attaining majority. The conceded position on record is that in the year 1980 the appellant-plaintiff was 13 years old and attained majority in the year 1985 and the suit was filed in the year 2010 i.e. after 25 years of attaining majority. The word "instrument" has been described in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 which means a non-testamentary instrument. On going through the contents of the plaint, admittedly there is no challenge to the conveyance of the aforementioned property i.e. in regard to the House No. 225, Sector 6, Panchkula which was effected in the year 1999. The challenge is only confined to transfer. The transfer would not fall within the expression "instrument", rightly so the legislature in its wisdom prescribed the limitation for challenging the instrument. Had the both expressions been one, both the Article 59 and 60 would have reflected the word "instrument" or "transfer". In both the judgments referred Venkatesh M. Karekar and Utha Moidu Haji the challenge was to the registered sale deed and not to the transfer. The sale deed would fall within the expression "instrument" but not "transfer" and the limitation to challenge the transfer as per Article 60 of the Act is three years from the date of attaining majority.