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 
[1] where he can obtain double its value; 
[2] where the minor has no other property and the sale is necessary for his maintenance; 
[3] where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them; 
[4] where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them;
 [5] where the expenses exceed the income of the property; 
[6] where the property is falling into decay;
 [7] 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.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS