2016 (4) TMI 1291 - SC - Indian Laws

Transaction in the name of the minor - Suit instituted within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority - Held that - A quondam minor plaintiff challenging the transfer of an immovable property made by his guardian in contravention of Section 8(1)(2) of the 1956 Act and who seeks possession of property can file the Suit only within the limitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Act and Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. The High Court as well as the Trial Court erred in applying Article 109 of the Act, where Article 109 of the Act clearly speaks about alienation made by father governed by Mitakshara law and further Courts below proceeded in discussing about the long rope given under Article 109 of the Act and comparatively lesser time specified under Article 60 of the Act. It is well settled principle of interpretation that inconvenience and hardship to a person will not be the decisive factors while interpreting the provision. When bare reading of the provision makes it very clear and unequivocally gives a meaning it was to be interpreted in the same sense as the Latin maxim says dulo lex sed lex , which means the law is hard but it is law and there cannot be any departure from the words of the law. Hence, in view of our above discussion, the limitation to file the present Suit is governed by Article 60 of the Act and the limitation is 3 years from the date of attaining majority. When once we arrive at a conclusion that Article 60 of the Act applies and the limitation is 3 years, the crucial question is when there are several plaintiffs, what is the reckoning date of limitation? A reading of Section 7 makes it clear that when one of several persons who are jointly entitled to institute a Suit or make an application for the execution of the decree and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against all of them but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run against all of them until one of them becomes capable of giving discharge. In the case on hand, the 1st plaintiff was 20 years old, the 2nd defendant was still a minor and the plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5, who are married daughters, were aged 29, 27 and 25 respectively, on the date of institution of the Suit in the year 1989. As per Explanation 2 of Section 7, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by Mithakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other members of family only if he is in management of the joint family property. In this case, plaintiffs 3 to 5 though majors as on the date of institution of Suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they are not the manager or Karta of the joint family. The first plaintiff was 20 years old as on the date of institution of the Suit and there is no evidence forthcoming to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to the age of the 1st plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the Suit is instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority as envisaged under Article 60 of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Suit filed in 1989 regarding the sale deed dated January 20, 1982, was within the limitation period.
2. Applicability of Article 60, 109, or 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the case.
3. The legal necessity and validity of the sale deeds executed by the mother (2nd defendant).
4. The impact of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 on the alienation of property by a de facto guardian.
5. The reckoning date of limitation when multiple plaintiffs are involved, some of whom are minors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for the Suit:
The primary issue was whether the Suit filed in 1989 to challenge a sale deed dated January 20, 1982, was within the limitation period. The Supreme Court confined itself to this question, examining whether the Suit was barred by limitation under the relevant articles of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Applicability of Articles 60, 109, or 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The appellant argued that Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for setting aside a transfer of property made by a guardian, applied to the case. The lower courts had applied Article 109, which provides a twelve-year limitation period for setting aside the alienation of ancestral property by the father under Mitakshara law. The Supreme Court concluded that Article 60 was the appropriate provision, as it specifically deals with the transfer of property by a guardian and prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date the ward attains majority.

3. Legal Necessity and Validity of Sale Deeds:
The plaintiffs contended that the sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant (their mother) were without legal necessity and for an inadequate consideration. The trial court found that the sales were void ab initio under Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as they were not made for legal necessity and were executed by a de facto guardian.

4. Impact of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:
The Supreme Court noted that Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, empowers a natural guardian to act for the benefit of the minor, but Section 8(2)(a) requires court permission for transferring immovable property. The court held that any transaction contravening these provisions is voidable and must be challenged within the limitation period prescribed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act.

5. Reckoning Date of Limitation for Multiple Plaintiffs:
The court examined Section 7 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the disability of one of several persons entitled to institute a Suit. The first plaintiff was 20 years old at the time of filing the Suit, and the second plaintiff was still a minor. The court concluded that the Suit was filed within three years of the first plaintiff attaining majority, thus within the limitation period prescribed by Article 60.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Suit was governed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date the ward attains majority. The Suit was filed within this period, making it timely. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments but clarifying the correct application of the limitation provisions.