Mohammed Law - Sale of Muslim minor property by mother - is valid ? - unless mother is appointed by the father as the guardian of his minor children's estate or is so appointed by the Judge, she has no power to intermeddle with their immovable property. All her dealings with the property are ipso facto void. -2015 - S.C.(1996) MSK LAW REPORTS 21
Admittedly, the appellant is a purchaser of the property from the 1st respondent who was a minor at that time and the property was sold through his mother as guardian.
The question raised in this case is,
whether the sale is valid ?
In Section 362, the legal guardian of the property of a minor has no power to sell the immovable property of the minor except in the cases
 where he can obtain double its value;
 where the minor has no other property and the sale is necessary for his maintenance;
 where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them;
 where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them;
 where the expenses exceed the income of the property;
 where the property is falling into decay;
 when the property has been usurped, and the guardian has reason to fear that there is no chance of fair restitution.
In Mumammadan law by Syed Ameer Ali [Vol .2] also it is stated at page 500 that
unless mother is appointed by the father as the guardian of his minor children's estate or is so appointed by the Judge,
she has no power to intermeddle with their immovable property. All her dealings with the property are ipso facto void.
In case the minor has no means of support except the property,
she must apply to the court for sanction in order to deal with the property.
Father is the natural guardian and in his absence other legal guardians would be entitled to act.
When a sale is to be made on behalf of the minor the necessary ingredients are that the sale must be for the benefit of the estate of minor and, therefore, the competent person entitled to alienate the minor's property would be, subject to the above condition, either the natural guardian or the property guardian appointed by the Court.
In this case after the demise of the father no property guardian was appointed.
The mother, therefore, is not guardian for the alienation of the property of the minor.
The sale made by the mother, therefore, is void.
whether the appellant has perfected his title.?
unless there is a specific plea and proof that the appellant had disclaimed his right and asserted hostile title and possession to the knowledge of the respondent within the
statutory period and the latter acquiesced to it, he cannot succeed to have it established that he perfected his right by prescripetion. The High Court has taken the fact that there is neither a plea nor proof in this behalf. We cannot find any infirmity in this finding. Under these
ciurcumstances, the finding that the appellant has perfected his title by prescription is clearly illegal. In this case we are concerned only with the validity of the sale in respect of the share of the respondent-plaintiff and not of the share of the mother.