9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed executed by the de facto guardian on behalf of the minor without the court's permission. 2. Burden of proof regarding the validity of the sale deed in a partition suit. 3. Applicability of the limitation period for challenging the sale deed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed by the De Facto Guardian on Behalf of the Minor Without the Court's Permission: The primary issue in this case was whether the sale deed executed by Kumara Naicker, the de facto guardian, on behalf of the minor appellant, without the court's permission, could be held valid. The appellant argued that the sale deed executed when she was a minor was not legally binding as it was done without the court's permission. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity to discharge the debt of the appellant's deceased mother. However, the Supreme Court noted that the de facto guardian had no legal authority to execute the sale deed without court permission, making the sale deed void and not binding on the appellant. 2. Burden of Proof Regarding the Validity of the Sale Deed in a Partition Suit: The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of the sale deed. According to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the party who desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts must prove those facts. The High Court and lower courts had erroneously placed the burden on the appellant to disprove the sale deed, contrary to the well-established principle that the party who pleads must prove. The plaintiff/respondent No.1, who claimed the property based on the sale deed, had the burden to prove its validity and that it was executed for legal necessity. The Supreme Court found that this burden was not discharged by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. 3. Applicability of the Limitation Period for Challenging the Sale Deed: The High Court had dismissed the second appeal, holding that the appellant should have challenged the sale deed within three years of attaining majority. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the appellant was not initially aware of the sale deed and was in possession of her share of the property. The appellant only became aware of the sale deed when the partition suit was filed. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period did not apply as the appellant had no cause of action to challenge the sale deed until it was disclosed to her in the partition suit. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and lower courts, holding that the burden of proving the validity of the sale deed lay with the plaintiff/respondent No.1, who failed to discharge this burden. The court also found that the appellant was not required to challenge the sale deed within the limitation period as she was not aware of it until the partition suit was filed. The partition decree was modified to exclude the appellant's share of the property, and the appeal was allowed with costs awarded to the appellant.
|
