Sanwal Das vs Amar Nath Shastri and another

Deoki Nandan, J.

This is a plaintiff''s second appeal in a suit for cancellation of a saledeed executed by the second defendantrespondent as the guardian of the plaintiffappellant who was a minor.

The saledeed was executed on 10th December, 1965 in order to meet the debts of the minor''s father and the second defendantrespondents'' husband. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 1000/. The first defendant respondent was the purchaser.

The trial Court cancelled the saledeed. On appeal by the first defendant, the purchaser, the lower appellate Court maintained the cancellation of the saledeed but directed the plaintiff to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 1000/. It was also ordered that the amount shall be charged on the property.

The property sold was in the nature of bhumidhari rights in land. Two points were raised before the lower appellate Court. One was that the sale was void because the permission of the District Court has not been obtained for the sale of plaintiff''s guardian. The other point was that the sale was not for legal necessity. The appellate Court on the first point held that the sale was voidable at the instance of the minor, who was the plaintiff, but not void, and since he had received the benefit of Rs. 1000/ from the sale, which was the amount of the consideration, he must refund the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. That the sale was voidable at the instance of the minor and not void, is concluded by the decision of this Court in Rajvir Singh v. Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad and others, 1974 RD 14. It cannot be disputed that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1965 governs the case in hand, inasmuch as the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not make any provision in respect of the powers of a tenure holder''s guardian to dispose of or otherwise deal with the minor''s property. If any authority were needed for the proposition, the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur" and others 1970 RD 149, is an authority on the point. Section II of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was applied in that case to the transfer of bhumidhari rights by a tenure holders'' defect guardian and it was held that the transfer was void in view of that provision.

The lower appellate Court has clearly found that the minor received the benefit of the amount of the consideration for the transfer. In view of this findings, with which I agree, it cannot be disputed that the minor must refund the consideration received by him for the transfer. See Jai Narain Lal and others v. Bechu Lal A.I.R. 1938 Alld. 614 D.B. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.