J.V. Gajre vs. Pathankhan and Ors.

(1970 (2) SCC 717)

Introduction:

This case revolves around a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the possession of a piece
of land. The landlord, who is the daughter of Champatrao, seeks to terminate the tenant's tenancy and
reclaim the land for personal cultivation. The legal validity of the lease granted by the landlord's mother
and the maintainability of the landlord's application under Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 are the main issues in contention.

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, as the daughter of Champatrao, received 27 acres of land from her father through a gift
deed. She served a notice on the tenant, informing him of her intention to terminate his tenancy based
on the grounds of bona fide personal cultivation. The appellant filed an application before the Naib
Tahsildar under Section 36 read with Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958,
seeking the termination of the tenant's tenancy and surrender of the entire land.

Later, the appellant amended her application, requesting half of the land in the tenant's possession,
specifically 13 acres and 38 gun in the eastern portion. The tenant resisted the claim, arguing that the
lease executed by the mother, who managed the suit properties on behalf of the minor appellant, was
legal and valid. The tenant also contended that the appellant's application was barred by limitation, as it
was not filed within one year of the Act coming into effect.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the lease granted by the mother of the landlord in favour of the tenant is valid or not.

2. Whether the application filed by the landlord under Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy Act
maintainable or not.

Appellant's Contentions:

The appellant's counsel raised three contentions. Firstly, the High Court, acting as a Court of Appeal,
interfered with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the revenue tribunals, which is not
warranted. Secondly, the lease executed by the mother on behalf of the appellant is not valid in law.
Thirdly, the application filed by the appellant before the Naib Tahsildar is not barred by limitation.

Respondent's Contentions:

The tenant challenged the orders of the revenue tribunal and the Naib Tahsildar in the High Court. The
High Court accepted the findings that the mother and father of the landlord had fallen out, and the
mother was managing the suit properties on behalf of her minor daughter. The High Court held that the
lease executed by the mother was legal and valid. Furthermore, the High Court held that the appellant's
application was barred by limitation as it was not filed within one year of her attaining majority.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court held that the lease executed by the mother of the appellant in favour of the tenant was
legal and valid. However, the High Court also held that the application filed by the appellant under
Section 39 was barred by limitation. The High Court treated the application as one filed under Section 36
read with Section 38 and granted relief to the appellant by allowing possession of half of the land.

Judgment:

The appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court, upholding the decision of the High Court. The Apex Court
agreed with the High Court's finding that the lease was legal and valid. The Court also agreed that the
appellant's application was barred by limitation. However, the Court showed consideration and
remanded the matter to the Naib Tahsildar for the division of the leased properties and granted relief to
the appellant by allowing possession of half of the land.

Principle Evolved:

The principle evolved in this case is that even if a lease is executed by a natural guardian on behalf of a
minor, it can be considered legal and valid if the guardian is actively managing the minor's affairs and the
other parent is not fulfilling their responsibilities as a guardian. The court acknowledged the role of the
mother as the natural guardian in this case, as she was taking care of the minor daughter's interests
while the father was not involved. Therefore, the lease executed by the mother on behalf of the
appellant was deemed legal and valid.

Impact on Society:

This case has important implications for landlords, tenants, and the legal framework surrounding
property disputes. It clarifies the circumstances under which leases executed by natural guardians on
behalf of minors can be considered valid. By recognizing the active role of a guardian in managing a
minor's affairs and protecting their interests, the case provides guidance and certainty in similar
situations.

The case also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods for filing
applications under relevant laws. It highlights the significance of timely action and compliance with legal
requirements to safeguard one's rights in property-related matters.

Furthermore, the case underscores the objective of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
which includes providing safeguards and rights to tenants while balancing the interests of landlords. The
judgment acknowledges the landlord's entitlement to a portion of the land for personal cultivation,
ensuring a fair distribution of resources and supporting agricultural activities.
 Panni Lal vs Rajinder Singh and Another (1993 (4) SCC 38)
Introduction:

The case revolves around a legal dispute concerning the sale of land belonging to minors without
obtaining the necessary court permission. The case raises questions regarding the validity of the sale and
the authority of the natural guardian to sell immovable property on behalf of the minors. The judgment
highlights the importance of protecting the interests of minors and the specific requirements for
alienating their property.

Facts of the Case:

The mother of the respondent minors, acting as their guardian, sold their land to the appellant through a
registered sale deed in 1964 when the respondents were still minors. Upon attaining majority, the
respondents filed a suit claiming possession of the land, arguing that the sale was void since it was made
by mother who is not natural guardian and it had been made without the permission of the court.

The appellant contended that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents,
implying that it was a sale by the legal guardian. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the sale was for
legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. The trial court concluded that the sale was not
proven to be for legal necessity or benefit and that it was void since it had been made by mother
without court permission. The court decreed in favour of the respondents. The appellant's appeals
before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal
before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the sale of the minors' land is void or voidable.

2. Whether the sale can be considered as one made by the father as natural guardian due to his
attestation of the sale deed.

3. Whether the sale fulfils the requirements of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, which regulates the powers of the natural guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property.

Appellant's Contentions:

The appellant contented that the sale deed was attested by the father of the respondents, implying that
it was a sale by the natural guardian of the minors. The appellant argued that the sale was made for legal
necessity and the benefit of the respondents, thereby justifying its validity. The appellant further
contended that the sale was not void but voidable, and as a result, the suit filed by the respondents was
barred by limitation since it was not brought within three years of each respondent attaining majority.

Respondent's Contentions:

The respondents claimed that the sale of their land was void since it was made by mother without
obtaining the necessary permission from the court, as required by law. They argued that the sale was not
proven to be for their legal necessity or benefit, and therefore, it could not be justified. The respondents
asserted that the sale being void, the suit was within the prescribed time limit and not barred by
limitation.
Ratio Decidendi:

The key ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the sale of a minor's immovable property without court
permission is voidable as per section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 but when the
father is present and taking interest in affairs of child and the sale of immovable property is not made by
natural guardian, then the sale is void for mother cannot be said to be natural guardian in such
circumstances according to section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The mere
attestation of the sale deed by the father does not render the sale as one made by the father as natural
guardian. The legal guardian must fulfil the requirements of Section 8, ensuring that the sale is for the
necessity or benefit of the minor and that court permission has been obtained.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. It concluded that
the sale of the minors' land by mother without court permission was void, and it could not be
considered as a sale by the father as natural guardian. The Court emphasized the need to protect a
minor's property from unauthorized alienation and reiterated that the legal guardian alone has the
power to alienate a minor's immovable property for their necessity or benefit, with prior court
permission.

Principle Evolved:

The case establishes the principle that the sale of a minor's immovable property without the court's
permission is voidable, however when there is no evidence to show that the father of the respondents
was not taking any interest in their affairs or that they were in keeping and care of the mother to the
exclusion of the father, the mother cannot be said to be the natural guardian and the sale by mother is
therefore, void, i.e., the sale cannot be validated solely based on the attestation of the sale deed by the
father. It highlights the importance of obtaining court permission and fulfilling the requirements of
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act to ensure the protection of a minor's property.

Impact on Society:

This case reinforces the legal safeguards in place to protect the rights and interests of minors,
particularly regarding their property. It emphasizes the significance of obtaining court permission before
alienating a minor's immovable property and highlights the need for legal guardians to act in the best
interests of the minors. The judgment serves as a precedent, guiding future cases involving the sale of
minors' property and ensuring their protection under the law.