The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.) that had invalidated sale deeds executed by a mother on behalf of her minor sons. The Court held that since the minors did not take any legal steps to repudiate the “voidable” transactions within the stipulated period after attaining majority, they lost their rights to the property.
Background
The dispute originated from several sale deeds executed between 1955 and 1961 involving ancestral land in village Sindhora, District Varanasi. The property belonged to the pedigree of one Brij Mohan. His grandsons, Adya Shanker and Kripa Shanker, along with Radhe Mohan, filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (UPCH Act).
They claimed that the sale deeds executed by their mother, Chamela Devi (widow of Vishwanath), and their father/uncle were illegal as the land was ancestral and their shares as minors were not protected. Specifically, Chamela Devi had sold the shares of Adya Shanker and Kripa Shanker while they were minors to repay loans.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners (vendees/purchasers) argued that the sales were valid and made for the welfare of the minors to repay family debts. They contended that the sons failed to challenge the sale deeds within the three-year limitation period after reaching majority, thereby relinquishing their rights.
Conversely, the respondents (the sons) argued that the land was ancestral and their mother had no legal authority to sell their shares without the permission of a competent authority. They supported the D.D.C.’s finding that the sale deeds were “void-ab-initio” because they were not for the benefit of the minors.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery examined the nature of the property and the legal status of the transactions. The Court confirmed that the land was indeed “ancestral,” as it devolved through inheritance.
On the issue of the mother selling the minors’ shares, the Court noted that while she did so without the permission of a competent authority and to repay a late husband’s debt rather than for the direct benefit of the children, such deeds are “voidable” rather than void from the beginning.
The Court observed:
“A voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit for setting aside the voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct.”
The Court found that Adya Shanker and Kripa Shanker became majors in 1962 and 1965, respectively, but did not take effective legal steps to challenge the deeds or repudiate the transactions until much later during consolidation proceedings in 1976.
The Court further noted:
“They have lost their rights, if any, on the land which was sold by their mother… the findings returned by D.D.C. are not legally justified, hence, are set aside.”
The Court held that the Revisional Authority (D.D.C.) failed to consider whether the minor children had taken steps to set aside the voidable transactions within the limitation period.
Decision
The High Court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated May 25, 1979. The Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to distribute the shares in accordance with the findings that the unchallenged voidable sale deeds had become final.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sarju and others vs. D.D.C. and others
- Case No.: WRIT B No. 6873 of 1979
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Date: April 23, 2026
