Limitation – Sale of Minors property without permission of court – Suit not filed by minor within 3 years from date of attaining majority – Barred by limitation : Limitation Act 1963 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 section 8(2)(3).

The plaintiff after her marriage instituted a suit for declaration that the sale deed is not binding on her interest in the suit property and for partition of her share.

The trial court dismissed the suit holding that it is barred by limitation. It was of the opinion that Article 60 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the suit and it was not filed within 3 years from the date of attaining of majority by the plaintiff.

The Hon’ble Court observed that it is not in dispute that the suit property was gifted to Lingarajamma i.e., the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The father of Lingarajamma, by name Gurusiddappa, had gifted the suit property under the Gift Deed dated 01-04-1975. Therefore, Lingarajamma was the absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift. It is for this reason, it could be safely concluded that the suit land was not a joint family property. Hence, the provisions of sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable as the said provisions either deal with a joint family property or succession to the property of a male. As Lingarajamma was the exclusive owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift by her father it is general rule of succession in the case of female, Hindu, apply, wherein on the death of Lingarajamma it is her husband, the sons and the daughters are entitled to succeed to her interest in the suit land.

The validity of a sale transaction in respect of the joint family property by ‘Karta’ or ‘adult member’ of a joint Hindu Family depends upon the existence of the legal necessity. At the time of its alienation, though a minor in the joint family has an undivided interest in the property alienated, if a suit is instituted challenging such alienation of a joint family property by a ‘Karta’ or an ‘adult member’ of the joint Hindu family and if it is proved that the same was not for legal necessity, the plaintiff who is not a party to the sale transaction could ignore the alienation and claim her share even in the property alienated. In such circumstances, it is the provisions of Article 109 of the Limitation Act which are attracted and the plaintiff can institute the suit within 12 years from date of alienee takes possession of the property.

Admittedly, the sale of the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant was on 04-06-1987. The suit instituted by the plaintiff is not within 3 years of her attaining the age of majority. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, the suit was barred by time.

When the sale transaction is voidable transaction and it is for the plaintiff, to sue for possession of the property and it is incumbent upon him to pray for such a relief. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the Sale Deed is not binding on her interest in the suit property and this relief is similar to setting aside the sale, which is contemplated under Article 60 of the Limitation Act and in the absence of the said relief, the suit itself cannot be maintained.