आम सूचना :-प्रकरण न्यायालय मै लंबित है इन किसी भी अनाबेदकगण क्रमांक:- रामकरण दुबे, अरबिंद दुबे, पुष्पा दुबे, निधि दुबे, ब्रजेश दुबे, निलेश दुबे व अन्य
सेवा मै,
श्रीमान जिला कलेक्टर महोदय जी जिला कटनी मप्र जनसुनवाई द्वारा श्रीमान तहसीलदार /नयाब तहसीलदार वि. गढ़./हल्का पटवारी देवराकला तहसील वि. गढ़. जिला कटनी मप्र
विषय :-प्रकरण न्यायालय मै लंबित है इन किसी भी अनाबेदकगण क्रमांक:- रामकरण दुबे, अरबिंद दुबे, पुष्पा दुबे, निधि दुबे, ब्रजेश दुबे, निलेश दुबे व अन्य किसी का नाम व फोती न उठाई जाय व किसी भी प्रकार से नामांतरण न किये जाने के सम्बंधित आबेदकगण की ओर से आपत्ति प्रस्तुत है :-
महोदय जी,
नम्र प्रार्थना है की यह की आबेदकगण बाल्मीकि दुबे, पूरनलाल दुबे, नवीन दुबे सभी के पिता श्री गोविन्द प्रसाद दुबे सभी निवासी ग्राम देवराकला तहसील वि. गढ़. जिला कटनी मप्र के निवासी है.यह की उपरोक्त आबेदकगण और उसका परिवार ग्राम मौजा-देवराकला, तहसील-विजयराघवगढ़, जिला कटनी, पटवारी हल्का संख्या 90, बंदोबस्त संख्या 262 में स्थित अपनी नाबालिक पैतृक कृषि भूमि पर कब्जे और स्वामित्व में है, भूमि खसरा संख्या के अनुसार। 528, 533/2, 596/1, 450/2, 455/1, 458, 508, 589/2, 467, 506, 507, 508/1, 1761/2, 894/2, 523, 1590, 1610, 1777, 1623, 459, 460, 461, 462/12, 465, 466, 519, 603/2, 631, 1568, 1588, 1607, 1761/1, 632, 1572, 775, 1774, 1600, 522/1, 527/1, 584/2, 591, 526, 584/1, 584/4, 584/7, 589/1, 390, 593, 1747/1, 584/8, 1606, 522/2, 527/2, 584/3, 584/6, 584/9, 592, 603/3, 595/2 का क्षेत्रफल क्रमशः 1.206, 0.219, 0.591, 0.401, 0.173, 0.644, 1.457, 0.413, 2444, 1.093, 0.890, 0.243, 1.00, 0.041, 0.344, 10.6, 0.51, 0.60, 0.52 है। 0.194, 0.040, 0.085, 0.117, 0.016, 0.045, 1.125, 0.190, 0.11, 0.62, 1.76, 292, 1.61, 0.10, 0.20, 0.32, 0.87, 0.30, 2.35, 0.22, 3.00, 1.99, 0.76, 0.951, 0.069, 0.166, 0.474, 0.21, 2.66, 2.99, 0.78, 1.76, 2.22, 1.84, 0.085, 0.489, 0.158, 1.39 0.66, 1.10, 2.96, 1.990, 0.41, 1.17, 0.07, 0.267, 0.445, 0.24, 0.308 और खुसरा संख्या 1588 क्षेत्रफल वाली 1.75 हेक्टेयर भूमि व खसरा नंबर :-603/2 रकबा 2.47 हे भूमि का प्रकरण न्यायालय मै लंबित है इन किसी भी अनाबेदकगण क्रमांक :-रामकरण दुबे, अरबिंद दुबे, पुष्पा दुबे, निधि दुबे, ब्रजेश दुबे, निलेश दुबे(यह कि पैतृक घर, जमीन, पैसा, सोना, चांदी चल अचल संपत्ति सब अनाबेदकगण के पास है जिसके सम्बंधित आज तक कोई भी बटवारा फोती नहीं उठी है जिसमे सभी आबेदकगण का व आबेदकगण के माता पिता का आज भी जन्म सिद्ध बैधानिक अधिकार हक है.) व अन्य अनाबेदकगण के सम्बंधित व्या. वाद क्रमांक :-42/2023 व दण्डिक परिवाद क्रमांक 18/2023 ( 1) Ramkaran Dubey(2) Govind prasad(3) Siya bai(4) late Vidhya bai ke Varishan pawan kumar, shivkumar,Rajesh kumar(5) indravati(6) smt. Mithlesh(नरेन्द्र कुमार, उर्फ़ देवेंद्र अन्ने दुबे,)(7) Savitri
(8) Basorilal kachi(9) Rambahori kachhi(10) Sona bai(11) Purosttam kachhi(12) Pritee(13) Muliyabai (14) Ramesh kachhi
(15) Sushila(16) Ajay kumar
(17) Ananand(18) Ahilya(19) Beniprasad(20) chunnilal Yadav
(21) Lakhanlal(22) Dhaniram Yadav(23) Dulichand Yadav
(24) Ganesh kachhi(25) santra bai
(26) Munnalal(27) Ramesh kachhi
(28) Maya(29) Laxmi prasad
(30) Ravindra kumar(31) Ramakant (32) Nishikant(33) Umakant samdariya(34) Mamta Tomar (35) state Govt. Mp. किसी का नाम व फोती न उठाई जाय व किसी भी प्रकार से नामांतरण न किया जाय उपरोक्त भूमि आबेदकगण की नाबालिक भूमि है जिसकी अंतिम वसीहतनामा दिनांक :-10/02/1990 व कुछ नंबर के व्यवस्था पत्र दिनांक :-10/9/89, व 02/09/89 किया गया है कुछ नंबर पर आबेदकगण का नाम दर्ज हो गया है डिक्री के पालन मै 1588, 1610, रकबा नंबर 1.75, 0.51 हे पर व कुछ नंबर पर प्रकरण लंबित है जिसकी जानकारी सभी अधिकारी ओ व अनाबेदक गण को है.यह की उपरोक्त नंबर ओ पर किसी प्रकार से फोती नामांतरण क्रय विक्रय न किया जाय जब तक प्रकरण का अंतिम निराकरण न हो जाय.
टीप :-यह कि कभी भी आबेदकगण व आबेदकगण के माता(अनपढ़ )पिता(वर्ष लगभग 1979 पूर्व से मानासिक पागल विकलांग है ) के द्वारा कभी भी कोई भी भूमि का क्रय विक्रय, अनुबंध, समझौता, इकरारनामा, सहमति पत्र, राजीनामा, दानपत्र आदि नहीं किया गया किसी भी अनाबेदकगण व उनके वरसान को न उनके किसी भी परिजनों को. उक्त भूमि ओ को ठेके /अधिया मै देते थे अनाबेदकगण ओ के द्वारा फर्जी जाली कूट रचित दस्ताबेज ओ व फर्ज जाली हस्ताक्षर अंगूठा के द्वारा बिना कोई प्रतिफल के बिना कोई प्रकरण व सूचना के फर्जी नामांतरण करवा लिऐ बिना कोई विधिक प्रकिया के नाबालिक कि भूमि ओ का जिसके सम्बंधित घटित घटना ओ के आधार पर आबेदकगण रिपोर्ट किये व प्रकरण लगाइए जिसके सम्बंधित कोई भी जवाब व खंडन नहीं किये.लंबित वाद कि जानकारी सभी अनाबेदकगण को है व अन्य को भी.यह कि न्याय दृस्टि :- नाबालिग (Minor) की संपत्ति का कोई भी विक्रय, गिरवी या हस्तांतरण बिना न्यायालय की अनुमति (Court’s Permission) के वैध नहीं होता।”
यह सिद्धांत भारतीय संरक्षक और वार्ड अधिनियम, 1890 (Guardian and Wards Act, 1890) की धारा 29 में भी स्पष्ट रूप से दर्ज है।
⚖️ मुख्य कानूनी बिंदु
1. न्यायालय की अनुमति आवश्यक:
यदि किसी नाबालिग की संपत्ति (चल/अचल) को बेचना या गिरवी रखना है, तो अभिभावक को पहले डिस्ट्रिक्ट कोर्ट या संबंधित न्यायालय से अनुमति लेनी होगी।
2. अनुमति के बिना बिक्री अवैध:
बिना न्यायालय की अनुमति के किया गया ऐसा कोई विक्रय या हस्तांतरण शुरू से ही अवैध (void ab initio) माना जाएगा।
3. नामंजूरी के लिए मुकदमे की आवश्यकता नहीं:
यदि ऐसा विक्रय किया भी गया हो, तो नाबालिग (या बालिग होने पर स्वयं) को इसे रद्द कराने के लिए कोई नया मुकदमा दायर करने की आवश्यकता नहीं।
यह सौदा स्वतः ही अमान्य माना जाएगा।
4. संपत्ति वापस लेने का अधिकार:
बालिग होने पर व्यक्ति सीधे कब्जा या स्वामित्व की बहाली के लिए दावा कर सकता है।
5. संबंधित प्रावधान:
संरक्षक एवं वार्ड अधिनियम, 1890 — धारा 29
भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम, 1872 — धारा 11 (नाबालिग का अनुबंध शून्य)
ट्रांसफर ऑफ प्रॉपर्टी एक्ट, 1882 — धारा 7 (केवल सक्षम व्यक्ति ही संपत्ति का हस्तांतरण कर सकता है)
🏛️ न्यायालयों का दृष्टिकोण
सुप्रीम कोर्ट:
Smt. Kanchana v. M. Selvaraj (2023) — कोर्ट ने कहा कि “नाबालिग की संपत्ति का विक्रय, कोर्ट की पूर्व अनुमति के बिना, शून्य और अमान्य है, इसे रद्द करने के लिए अलग से मुकदमा दायर करने की आवश्यकता नहीं।”
मद्रास हाईकोर्ट:
“ऐसा सौदा कभी अस्तित्व में आया ही नहीं माना जाएगा, क्योंकि अभिभावक को कानून ने ऐसी अनुमति बिना संपत्ति बेचने का अधिकार ही नहीं दिया।”
📘 सारांश
> 🔹 नाबालिग की संपत्ति बेचने के लिए कोर्ट की अनुमति अनिवार्य है।
🔹 अनुमति के बिना बिक्री अवैध और निरस्त मानी जाएगी।
🔹 इसे रद्द कराने के लिए मुकदमा दायर करने की भी आवश्यकता नहीं। इसी प्रकार से न्याय दृस्टि :-panni lal vs
+2
पन्नी लाल बनाम राजिंदर सिंह (5 मई 1993) सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का एक ऐतिहासिक मामला है, जो नाबालिग की अचल संपत्ति की बिक्री से संबंधित है। न्यायालय ने माना कि माता-पिता द्वारा बिना अदालती अनुमति (हिंदू अल्पसंख्यक और संरक्षकता अधिनियम, 1956 की धारा 8) के की गई बिक्री शून्य (void) है। यह बिक्री के समय सीमा के भीतर होने पर नाबालिग के पक्ष में रहा।
Indian Kanoon
+3
मामले के मुख्य विवरण (Panni Lal vs Rajinder Singh, 1993):
विवाद: अपीलकर्ता ने नाबालिग प्रतिवादियों की संपत्ति खरीदी, जो उनकी मां ने बेची थी, जबकि पिता जीवित थे।
कानूनी मुद्दा: क्या प्राकृतिक अभिभावक (पिता) के होने पर माता द्वारा किया गया हस्तांतरण वैध है?
निर्णय: हिंदू अल्पसंख्यक और संरक्षकता अधिनियम की धारा 8 के तहत, अदालत की अनुमति के बिना नाबालिग की संपत्ति बेचना गैरकानूनी है। यदि पिता जीवित है, तो मां का संरक्षक के रूप में कार्य करना और संपत्ति बेचना, भले ही पिता गवाह हो, उस बिक्री को 'शून्य' बनाता है, न कि केवल रद्द करने योग्य।
परिणाम: संपत्ति पर नाबालिगों का अधिकार बरकरार रहा और अपील खारिज कर दी गई। इसी प्रकार से न्याय दृस्टि :-Madras High Court
Sri Aurobindo Society vs Ramadoss Naidu on 8 April, 1979
Equivalent citations: AIR1980MAD216
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal raises a point about the validity of an alienation of a Hindu minor's property by a facto guardian. This species of guardians has been abolished by S. 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1950. But the transaction in this case arose before the Act, and hence it bears on the position of law which prevailed earlier. It also raises a point as to the appropriate steps to be followed by the minor for impugning or getting over sales by de facto guardians.
2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. One Lakshmi Ammal had a life interest and her two sons had a vested remainder in an item of land. These were be quoted to them under a Will. When second son Govindrajulu was still a minor, the mother Lakshmi, Ammal and her first joined together and sold the entire bequeathed property, inclusive of the minors interest there in. In that conveyance, the mother purported to act as the minor's guardian. The minor's father was very much there at the time, but he rested content with attesting the sale deed.
3. The minor came of age in 1956. His mother died in 1965. Subsequently in 1967 the minor sold the half share in the property which, he got under the Will to the Aurobindo Society.
4. Meanwhile, the, original alienee from Lakshmi Ammal had sold the pro perty to another person and the latter had sold the property to another person and the latter had settled it in favour of a lady. The Aurobindo Society, as purchaser of Govinda rajulu's undivided half share filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the alienee from Lakshmi Ammal and his successors in interest. These defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The objected to the frame of the suit and they nature of the relief claimed therein. They said that the plaintiff ought not to have straightway filed a suit for partition and separate possession. They said a suit for possession or partition would not lie so long as the sale of the minor's property hand not been set aside as not binding on him.
5. The trial Court held that Lakshmi Ammal was not the legal guardian of minor Govindarajulu when his father was there, and she had no authority to sell minor's interest in the suit land. It rejected the contention that the sale in so far as the minor's share was concerned was in the interest of the minor and for the minor's benefit. It accordingly directed that the sale of the minor's interest was void. It proceeded to hold that when the sale was void, no question arose of setting aside a void sale. In this view, it upheld the maintainability of the suit as framed and gave the plaintiff a preliminary decree for partition of a half share in the property.
6. On appeal by the defendants; the Sub-court reversed the trial court's decree. It held that the sale by the mother had been effected as the minor's de facto guardian and hence it was merely voidable and not void altogether. It further held that the question whether the sales of the minor's share was or was not for the minors necessity or benefit cannot be gone into in any suit other than a suit filled for setting aside the sale. In this view it desisted from going into the question of necessity or benefit to the minors estate in the instant suit for partition. In the end, it held that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in the way the suit was instituted.
7. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the Aurobindo Society, ed that since the mother, during the father's lifetime, cannot act as the minor's legal guardian, her sale of the minor's share in the property was altogether void and not merely voidable. It was hence urged that there was no need for setting aside the sale. They contended that they were entitled to the mother's transaction and straightway ask for partition and separate possession.
8. I must uphold this stand as correct. I however, feel that the position of Lakshmi Ammal has not been accurately described in the discussion of the question go far. She was referred to by almost every one as the de facto guardian. This expression is employed in law in contradistinction to 'de jure guardian'. But both the expressions, in my judgment, imply a relationship to the ward which is regular and continuous, and not casual or one which acts by its and starts. In other words, what the de facto guardian lacks, as compared to a de jure guardian, is legal authority to act for the minor. In other respects there is practically little or no difference between them. A de facto guardian however is not one who acts for the nonce. He is a factual guardian who acts in the regular course, over a period of issue. If it were other i.e., minor can have as many de facto guardians as there are transactions to be done on his behalf.
9. The arguments in this Case in the courts below were on the footing that Lakshmi Ammal was a de facto guardian. It seems to me, however, that the description do facto guardian does not fit her and is a gross overstatement of her factual position. The evidence in the ewe only shows that she acted for the minor in this one single transaction of sale. Her husband was there all the time and he had actually attested even the sale deed as a witness. It is not any one's case that he was a nonentity or that he was in some way incapacitated to act as the guardian of his minor son, or that the mother had always been acting point of fact, as the guardian this son's minority, if not the elder son's too. In these circumstances, it seems to me quite inapposite to describe her as a regular de facto guardian. All that can be said is that in this particular transaction she had purported to act for the minor. This can only be described as ad hoc guardianship to employ an expression used in text books and case law.
10. The position in law, of such ad hoc guardians is left in no doubt whatever their acts are null and void, and cannot bind the minor, although they are purported to be effected in the minor's interest. For ad hoc guardians are neither de jure nor de factodians. They are self-appointed guardians for the minors just for the occasion, as it comes along. In Harilal v. Gordhan (1927) ILR 51 Bon 1040: (AIR 1927 Bom 611) it was held that a sale by a guardian ad hoc was void ab initio.
11. I am satisfied that Lakshmi Ammal merely took it into her head to execute the sale as a guardian just this once. This casual and by no means raises her to the status of a de facto guardian, properly so-called. It follows that her sale is ab initio void. Even on the footing that Lakshmi Ammal was acting as a regular de facto guardian during the minority of this son, not only in this transaction, but also in other transactions, for which, as said, there is no evidence whatever in this case, still there is authority for the position that the alienation by her would be void and not merely voidable at the minor's option. Vide the decision of Viswanatha Sastri J. in Palaniappa v. Nallappa .
12. In this case, the learned judge held that in the case of a sale of minor's property by a de facto guardian, without necessity or benefit to the minor, the setting aside of the transaction is not a condition precedent to the minor recovering the property from the alienee and the minor can straightway sue for possession. According to the learned judge, an alienation by a de facto guardian is an alienation to which the minor, strictly, is not a party in the sense that he is validly represented by a legally authorised representative.
13. In Arumu Cheth Duraisinga Thevar (1914) ILR 37 Mad 38 (AIR 1914 Mad 648), it has been held that where a de facto guardian alienated the property a minor for whom a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act had been appointed, the transaction was null and void.
14. The position of a void transaction is that in the eye of the law, it does not exist and no tide passes. The document of transfer under such a transaction is altogether a dead letter at the very start and no rights flow there under. If in this case the transaction is void, then there can be no question at all of art option being left to the Minor whose property has been so dealt with, either to affirm the transaction or to avoid it. For, where the transaction does not exist, but is non est in law, it is not amenable either for ratification or for avoidance. Even if a minor should affirm the transaction, nothing would flow from such affirmance.
15. The Sub-Court relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Palani Gounder v. Vanjiakkal (1956) 09 Mad LW 276: (AIR 19M Mad 476). In that case, however, no question at all directly and properly arose about the nature of a sale by a de facto guardian. That decision, incidentally was disapproved on another point in a recent Fill Bench decision of this court in Amirthan Kadurnban v. Sornam Kudumban .
16. Learned counsel referred to the Full Bench decision of this court in Sankaranarayana v. Kandasamia, ILR (1956) Mad 1300: (AIR 19% Mad 670). This decision however, was not concerned with the transfer by a de facto guardian of the minor. It dealt with the case of a sale deed executed by the father in which his minor son was eo nomine party and duly represented by his father as guardian. The Full Bench hold that in such a case it was obligatory on the part of the Minor to have the transfer cancelled on the footing that it is not binding on him. This case obviously does not help us in the present case which is that of a transfer by an ad hoc guardian.
17. It has been held in Ponnammal v. Gomathi Ammal, AIR 1936 Mad 884 that an alienation of a minor property by a person who is neither a nor a dejure guardian of the minor, is void and not voidable and the minor on attaining majority can ignore such an alienation. It was further held in this ease that it is not necessary for the minor, to get the document aside within three years of his attaining majority In Rarasswanat v. Kasinathan, AIR 1928 Mad 226 (2), a Bench of this court held that even in the case of alienations by de facto guardians, strict proof would be necessary not only of necessity but also of adequate consideration.
18. On the evidence on record in this case, there can be no doubt that Lakshmi Ammal's sale, of the minor's share was not necessity or for the benefit, of the minor's estate. The trial court has found as a fact that the sale was avowedly effected by Lakshnni Ammal for discharging a prior mortgage, but this mortgage was not an encumbrance on the minor's estate, but was a mortgage effected by Lakshmi Ammal an her own separate property. On the basis of this clear finding, the trial court rightly held the sale not to be for the minor's necessity or benefit. It follows, therefore, that the sale cannot stand.
19. As I earlier mentioned; the Sub-Court did not address itself on this issue as to whether the sale was for the minor's benefit. But it is not necessary to send the case back to the Sub-Court on this account in view of the clear out finding of the trial court on the issue, which fairly emerge from the documents exhibited in the case.
20. In the result I allow the second appeal set aside the judgment, and decree of the Sub-court and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellant will have his costs of this appeal the contesting respondent.
21. Appeal allowed.इसी प्रकार से न्याय दृस्टि :-Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose Case
(Landmark)
MOHORI BIBEE
Vs.
DHARMODAS GHOSE
ILR (1903) 30 CAL 539 (PC)
The Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines contracts as an agreement enforceable by law. The contracts cannot be entered into by any person; the competency regarding the same has been laid down under Section 11 of the Act. The Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that the person of age of majority, sound mind and not disqualified by law are competent to contract. The age of majority has been determined by the Indian Majority Act, 1875; according to the Section 3 of the said Act the person who completed the age of 18 is major.
The Contract Act lays down the law regarding competency but nowhere states about the effect of the contract if entered by the minor person. This conundrum has been settled by the following landmark case.
BENCH:
Lord Mcnaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson
COURT:
Privy Council
FACTS
In the present case, Dharmodas Ghose while he was minor entered into an agreement with Brahmodutt who was moneylender to secure a loan of Rs 20,000. At the time of the transaction the attorney, who acted on behalf of the moneylender, had the knowledge that the Dharmodas is a minor. Later, minor brought an action against the defendant stating that he was a minor when the mortgage was executed by him and, therefore, the mortgage was void and inoperative and the same should be cancelled.
In this case, appeal was filed by Brahmodutt's executors and they contended that minor represented his age fraudulently therefore law of estoppel should apply and also if the instrument is cancelled as pleaded by the Dharmodas then he should be made to pay the loan according to Section 64 and 65 of Contract Act.
For Judiciary Aspirants - Start your judiciary preparation with the right program: Foundation 3-Year Course, Foundation Ultimate Course, Udaan Foundation Course, and specialized Targeted Course — all designed to match your needs.
ISSUES
1) Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not?
2) Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he had received by him under such deed or mortgage or not?
3) Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or not?
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
JUDGMENT
After considering the facts of the case, Privy Council held that the agreement entered into with minor is void ab initio i.e. void from the very beginning. The court further held regarding the contentions of the defendant that, firstly law of estoppel will not apply since the attorney of Brahmodutt had knowledge of fact of minority of Dharmodas. Secondly, Section 64 and 65 of Indian Contract will not apply as there wasn't an agreement at the first place and for the application of Section 64 and 65 the contract must be between competent parties.
Therefore, a precedent of minor's agreement are void ab initio had been laid down in the present case.
ANALYSIS
In this case, various principles of law had been analysed and laid down as follows:the Law of Estoppel will not apply against the minor, despite the fact that the minor made an intentional misrepresentation, he will still be allowed to plead minority as a defence to evade liability. The reason behind such proposition is that the law made minor incompetent to contract because the person of such age should not be made liable to incur liabilities and applying the law of estoppel will defeat the purpose of S.11 of the Contract Act which makes the minor incompetent. Therefore, the law of estoppel will not apply against the minor as by such application he will be made to incur liability.
2) Section 64 and 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872:
The Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, relates to the restoration of benefit received under voidable and void contracts respectively. The court observed that Section 64 and 65 applies to the contract between competent wherein it has been declared as void or voidable. However, in the present case the parties to the contract were not competent and therefore the provisions of restoration of benefit under Contract Act won't be applicable in the present case.
3) Refund under Specific Relief Act, 1877
The Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 i.e. current Section 33 Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that on adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require. Basically, this provision means that the party who wants the cancellation of instrument from the court must restore the benefit it received under instrument. In the
present case, appellant wants the cancellation of instrument and also restoration of benefit; therefore, he can't claim the benefit of refund under Specific Relief Act.
In order to rectify the situation of minor agreement, Law Commission in its 13th Report suggested that an explanation to the Section 65 should be added that and it should be made applicable to minor agreements too.
The various courts have developed the equitable doctrine of restitution in the case of minor's agreement. According to this doctrine, if the benefit received by minor under the transaction are either goods or anything else other than the money, then such goods or things as long as traceable shall be restored back to bonafide party to an agreement. However, the law regarding restitution of money i.e. where the benefit received under the transaction is in the form of money has not yet been settled; regarding this view courts have difference of opinion.
The settled law is that agreements with the minor are void ab initio.मोहरी बीबी बनाम धर्मदास घोष मामले (1903) में प्रिवी काउंसिल ने फैसला सुनाया कि नाबालिगों के साथ किए गए अनुबंध अमान्य और लागू नहीं किए जा सकते। चूँकि धर्मदास ने अपनी संपत्ति गिरवी रखते समय नाबालिग था, इसलिए अनुबंध को अमान्य घोषित कर दिया गया और साहूकार मोहरी बीबी इसे लागू नहीं कर सकती थी उक्त निर्णय अवलोकनीय है. यह कि आबेदकगण के बाबा बलदेव प्रसाद दुबे ने अपने स्वयं के हक अधिकार व भूमि स्वामी अधिपत्य व कब्जे कि भूमि को नाबालिक के समय से कि सब कि जानकारी मै व्यवस्था पत्र व अंतिम वसीहतनामा किया था जो कि प्रकरण के लंबित न्यायालय ने प्रमाणित माना है.यह कि आबेदकगण के पूर्बज पुराने माल गुजार जमींदार थे.-यह कि ग्राम मौजा देवराकला तह. वि. गढ़. पटवारी हल्का नंबर 90/7 ब. न. 262 पुराना ब. न. 65 राजस्व मंडल वि. गढ़. जिला कटनी मप्र. ग्राम मौजा देवराकला मे स्थित पैतृक भूमि का खसरा नंबर व रकबा नंबर:=तालिका:-(ब) के खण्ड-1, 2, 3 तक के खण्ड मे वृणित खसरा नंबर:- खण्ड-1- के खसरा नंबर (रामकरण दुबे) := (1)-528, (2)-533/2 ,(3)-596/1 (4)-450 (5)-455/1 ( 6)-458 (7)-459 (8)-460 (9)-461 (10)-464/12 (11)-465 (12)-466 (13)-467 (14)-506 (15)-607 (16)-608/1
रकबा नंबर
(1)-1.206 (2) -0.219 (3) -0.591 (4)-0.401 (5)-0.173 (6)-0.644 (7)-0.194 (8)-0.040 (9)-0.085 (10)-0.117 (11)-0.016 (12)-0.045 (13)-2.444 (14)-1.093 (15)-0.870 (16)-0.243
खण्ड-2- के खसरा नंबर (रविशंकर दुबे,अरबिंद कुमार दुबे)
(17) -1761/2 रकबा नंबर:- 1.00
खण्ड-3- के खसरा नंबर
(18)-894/2 (19)- 508 (20)-519 (21)-523 (22)- 589/2 (23)-603/2
रकबा नंबर
(18)- 0.041 (19)-1.457 (20)-1.125 (21)-0.344 (22)-0.413 (23)-0.190
अतिरिक्त खसरा नंबर व रकबा नंबर तालिका :-द :-प्रथम पक्ष:- बलदेव प्रसाद दुबे राडपुस्तिका क़. ई.:-8335117 मे वृणित खसरा नंबर व रकबा नंबर का विवरण:-
(24)-388 (25)-485/1 -(26)-485/2 (27)-521 (28) -542 (29)-605 (30)-608/3 (31)-610 (32)-466/1 (33)-466/2 (34)- 463 (35)-468/1 (36)-468/2 (37)-468/3 (38)-505 (39)-519 (40)-457/2 (41)-893 (42)-894/1 (43)-895 (44)-956/35
रकबा नंबर
(24)-1.481 (25)-0.219 (26)-0.640 (27)-0.546 (28)-0.388 (29)-0.648 (30)-1.862 (31)-0.753 (32)-0.809 (33)-0.324 (34)-0.938 (35)-0.045 (36)-0.259 (37)-0.162 (38)-1.153 (39)-0.29 (40)-0.162 (41)-0.024 (42)-0.81 (43)-0.077 (44)-0.030
द्वितीय पक्ष:-रामकरण दुबे के हक के खसरा नंबर व रकबा नंबर का विवरण:-
(45)-894/2 (46)-508 (47)-519 (48)-523 (49)589/2 (50)-603/2
रकबा नंबर
(45)-0.041 (46)-1.457 (47)-1.125 (48)-0.344 (49)-0.413 (50)-0.324
यह कि उपरोक्त सभी खसरा नंबर व रकबा नंबर पैतृक भूमि इन नंबर ओ का आज तक कोई भी बटवारा नहीं हुआ है ज़ो कि अनाबेदकगण क्र. 1,2,3, के नाम दर्ज है ज़ो कि बलदेव प्रसाद दुबे कि पैतृक भूमि है.जिसका बटवारा किया जाय. नोट :-यह कि आबेदकगण को नाबालिक के समय मै बाल्मीकि दुबे, पूरनलाल दुबे, नवीन कुमार दुबे,व इनके नाम जो व्यवस्था पत्र मै खसरा नंबर :-1588 1610, 1777, 631/2 रकबा :-1.75,0.51, 0.60,0.04 हे भूमि को अलग से दिये थे व ,अंतिम वसीहतनामा दिनांक :-10/02/90 के माध्यम से व व्यवस्था पत्र के माध्यम से नाबालिक मै भूमि दिए थे बाबा अपने स्वयं के हक अधिकार व भूमि स्वामी कब्जे अधिपत्य कि भूमि दिए थे . यह कि व्यवस्था पत्र व अंतिम वसीहतनामा मै वर्णित खसरा नंबर रकबा नंबर के सहित कुछ अन्य नंबर ओ के सम्बंधित अंतिम वसीहतनामा मै वर्णित खसरा नंबर ओ को छोड़ कर के शेष बचे खसरा नंबर ओ पर आज तक कोई भी फोती व बटवारा नहीं हुआ है जो कि पैतृक भूमि है (न तो घर, न सोना, न चांदी व अन्य चल अचल संपत्ति अनाबेदकगण रामकरण दुबे व अरविन्द दुबे, रविशंकर दुबे जो कि रामकरण दुबे के पुत्र है इनके नाम दर्ज है पैतृक भूमि जिसका बटवारा नामांतरण फोती उठाना अति आवश्यक हैजो कि हिन्दू उत्तराधिकर अधिनियम 1956 कि धारा 6 के तहत जन्म सिद्ध अधिकार है सभी सहदायिक ओ का. यह कि कुछ भूमि संघवारा जाटवारा व बकठा, छा :घरा ग्राम मै है व गोपालबाग मै व कुछ भूमि बस स्टैंड मै है जो कि चोरी से बिना बटवारा के बिना कोई प्रतिफल के बिना कोई सूचना के ही बिना कोई विधिक प्रकिया के ही फर्जी नाम दर्ज है कुछ अन्य लोगो का जिसका भी बटवारा किया जाय जो कि पैतृक भूमिया है. यह कि अनाबेदकगण रामकरण, रविशंकर, अरबिंद के द्वारा आबेदकगण व अन्य के विरुद्ध उच्च कोर्ट जबलपुर मप्र मै निर्णय डिक्रीBoth the Second Appeals have been filed against the judgment 5 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011 and decree dated 21.03.2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Katni in Civil Appeal No.26A/2010 arising out of judgment and decree dated 08.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni in Civil Suit No.2A/2009.5. It was further pleaded that the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 had filed a suit against Govind Prasad and in Appeal No.15A/2005, order date :-30/06/06 which was pending before Additional District Judge, Katni,14. Even otherwise, mere mutation would not give a presumption that the defendants No.1 to 3 are in possession of the land in dispute, for the reasons that in the Khasra Panchshala, it has been mentioned that the correction has been made in the light of order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Tahsildar. The copy of the order dated 20.04.2009 has not been filed alongwith an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
15. Furthermore, it appears that the names of the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 were mutated during the pendency of the civil suit, therefore, the said mutation will not confer any independent right in favour of the defendants No.1 to 3 specifically in the light of the admission made by the defendants No.1 to 3 in their written statement. Further, it is clear that the finding regarding possession is a finding of fact. In view of the admission made by the defendants No.1 to 3 in their written statement, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to the possession of the plaintiff is erroneous. Thus, I.A. No.1705/2023 is hereby rejected.
16. No other argument is advanced.
17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law as proposed by the appellants arises in the present appeal.
18. Accordingly, the S.A. No.547/2011 filed by the appellants Ramkaran, Ravishankar and Arvind Kumar fails and is hereby dismissed.
14 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011
S.A. No.660/2011.29. It is well established principle of law that this Court while exercising power under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless and until they are shown to be perverse or based on some inadmissible evidence. No perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
20 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011.
22. It is the case of the plaintiff that the mother of the defendants No.5 to 7 had executed a sale deed in his favour. Undisputedly, the defendants No.5 to 7 were minor on the date of execution of sale deed.
16 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011
The following are the questions for considerations:
1. As to whether the sale without the permission of the Court as required under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is valid or not?
2. Whether during the lifetime of the father, the mother can alienate the property belonging to minor children by projecting herself to be their guardian or not?
23. Section 8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as under:
"8. Powers of natural guardian--
(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.
(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,--
(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor; or
(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.
(3) Any disposal of immovable property by 17 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011 a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.
(4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.
(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular--
(a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof;
(b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and
(c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-
section (2) of this section to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that court.
(6) In this section "court" means the city civil court or a district court or a court empowered under section 4A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 18 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011 the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate."
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Panni Lal Vs. Rajinder Singh and Another reported in (1993) 4 SCC 38 has held that the alienation of minor's property by mother during the lifetime of her husband/father of the minor cannot be said to be a sale by a natural guardian and therefore, the sale is not merely voidable under Section 8 but void being outside the purview of the section.
30. The Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288 has held as under:
"35. It is worth noting that this Court in Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann [(2001) 4 SCC 262 : AIR 2001 SC 1273] has held that while it is true that in a second appeal, a finding of fact, even if erroneous, will generally not be disturbed but where it is found that the findings stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to deal with the issue. An issue pertaining to perversity comes within the ambit of substantial question of law. Similar view has been stated in Govindaraju v. Mariamman [(2005) 2 SCC 500] .
36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh [(1997) 3 SCC 546 : AIR 1997 SC 1906] it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
37. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [(1999) 3 SCC 573] it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the 21 S.A. No.547/2011 & S.A. No.660/2011 jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board [(2007) 14 SCC 138 : AIR 2008 SC 956] ."
31. No substantial question of law as proposed by the appellant Nasim Khan arises in the present appeal.
32. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
33. Ex-consequenti, the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Katni in Civil Appeal No.26A/2010 is hereby affirmed.
34. S.A. No.547/2011 filed by the Ramkaran, Ravishankar and Arvind as well as S.A. No.660/2011 filed by Nasim Khan are hereby dismissed.
35. No order as to cost.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.02.09 17:59:10 +05'30' इसी प्रकार से अन्य निर्णय मै भी जो कि यह की उक्त अन्य खसरा नंबर 1777 रकबा नंबर 0.60 हे के सम्बंधित आज दिनांक तक डिक्री का पालन नहीं हुआ जबकि व्य. वाद क्रमांक 107A.09 के निर्णय दिनांक:- 19.9.11 को नाबालिक भूमि का अनाबेदकगण देवकुमार तिवारी फर्जी कूट रचित तरीके से बैनामा दिनांक :-10.3.93 तैयार करवा लिया था जिसको अबैध शून्य किया है व इसी प्रकार से नसीम खान के द्वारा फर्जी कूट रचित नाबालिक के भूमि की फर्जी जाली बैनामा दिनांक :-12/5/93 तैयार करवा लिया था जिसको निर्णय दिनांक 08/10/10 के निर्णय मे व निर्णय दिनांक :-21/03/11 के निर्णय मे शून्य किया है बैनामा दिनांक :-12/05/93 को व डिक्री दिनांक :-30/10/06 की अलोच्च आज्ञप्ति खंड को निरस्त किया जिन तथ्यों को छिपाकर फर्जी आपत्ति लगाइए है जो की निरस्त योग्य है. अनाबेदकगण कि फर्जी जाली कूट रचित वसीहतनामा दिनांक :-15.1.92 को प्रमाणित हुआ नहीं माना निर्णय दिनांक :-19/09/11 के निर्णय मे जिसकी पुष्टि अपील क्रमांक 37A./12 के निर्णय दिनांक 05.2.15 में है पुनः नया वाद लगाइए व्य. वाद क्र. 04A./15 निर्णय दिनांक 31.7.17 को दावा निरस्त किया गया जिसकी अपील क्रमांक :-122A./17 अंतिम निर्णय दिनांक :03.10.18 अपील को निरस्त किया गया व हर्जाना भी वहन किये जाने का निर्णय किया उक्त प्रकरण डिक्री के पालन के सम्बंधित लगा आज तक डिक्री का पालन नहीं किया गया नायब तहसीलदार के द्वारा रोज फर्जी आवेदन विरोधी ओ से मिलकर लगावाते जिसका कोई भी हक अधिकार नहीं है बाबू व अधिकारी कि मिली भगत से पूरे तहसील मै भ्रष्टाचार चल रहा है यह कि बैनामा शून्य अबैध के वाद भी अना.देवकुमार तिवारी का नाम राजस्व के द्वारा 2017 मै फर्जी बिना सुने व बिना आबेदकगण को पक्षकर बनाइए फर्जी व डिक्री का अवमानना करते हुये फर्जी अनाबेदक का नाम दर्ज किये जो अनाबेदक का नाम विलोपित कर आबेदकगण नाम दर्ज किया जाय डिक्री के पालन कर और संलिप्त राजस्व अधिकारी ओ को सिविल जेल भेजा जाय डिक्री का अवमानना करने पर व आपत्तिकर्ता के व्य. वाद क्र. 4A/05 के निर्णय दिनांक :-3/1/05 मै फर्जी वसीहतनामा दिनांक :-15/1/92 को निष्प्रावभी किया व दावा निरस्त किया जिसका सिविल अपील क्रमांक :-15A/05 निर्णय दिनांक :30/10/06 के निर्णय व प्रकरण ओ मै आबेदकगण पक्षकर नहीं है. यह की जो कि निर्णय दिनांक 21/3/11 के अपील मै निरस्त किया जिसके सम्बंधित उच्च कोर्ट के SA:-547/2011 के निर्णय दिनांक 6/2/23 को अपील को ख़ारिज किया जिसके सम्बंधित आज तक सुप्रीम कोर्ट मै अपील नहीं किये अनाबेदकगण फर्जी नामांतरण व खसरा प्रविष्टि से कोई भी स्वतंत्र अधिकार नहीं मिलेगा अपीलर्थीगण अनाबेदकगण के दस्ताबेज ओ को सहित आबेदन को निरस्त किये. ) उक्त निर्णय अवलोकनीय है व जिनका पालन किया जाय.
दिनांक :-10/03/23 आबेदकगण
स्थान :- वि. गढ़. पूरनलाल दुबे
प्रतिलिपि :-श्रीमान जिला कलेक्टर महोदय जी जिला कटनी मप्र. द्वारा जनसुनवाई कटनी मप्र.