In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that the transfer of immovable property to a minor is legally valid as a sale is not classified as a contract under the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment came in Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019, in a case involving a disputed sale of land in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The ruling came in favour of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (respondent), upholding his ownership of the disputed land, originally sold to him when he was a minor.
A bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar emphasized that although a minor cannot be a transferor of property, there is no legal prohibition on a minor being a transferee in such transactions. This clarification resolves one of the key legal issues raised by the appellants, Neelam Gupta and others (the legal representatives of the original defendants), who challenged the legitimacy of a 1968 sale of the land to the then-minor Rajendra Kumar Gupta.
Background of the Case
The property in question, measuring 7.60 acres and located in Mowa village, Raipur, was initially sold to Rajendra Kumar Gupta through a registered sale deed on June 4, 1968, by Sitaram Gupta, a cousin of both parties. Rajendra Kumar Gupta filed the civil suit (No. 195A/95) in 1986 for recovery of possession, alleging that he was wrongfully dispossessed of the land by Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta (defendants) in 1983.
The appellants contended that the sale to Rajendra Kumar Gupta was void, arguing that the land was part of a Joint Hindu Family property and that the sale was merely a paper transaction as Sitaram, the vendor, was allegedly not authorized to sell the land. They also argued that the sale deed was executed when Rajendra Kumar Gupta was a minor, thereby rendering the transaction invalid.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Validity of Sale to a Minor:
The appellants challenged the sale deed, arguing that Rajendra Kumar Gupta, being a minor at the time, could not legally acquire property. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, holding that under the Transfer of Property Act, there is no bar on a minor being a transferee. The court noted that a sale, defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, is a transfer of ownership and not a contract, making the legal provisions concerning the capacity to contract under the Indian Contract Act irrelevant.
The Court observed, “Though an agreement to sell is a contract of sale, a sale cannot be said to be a contract. A minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property.”
2. Claim of Joint Hindu Family Property:
The appellants argued that the land was purchased with joint family funds and therefore could not be individually transferred. However, the courts below, including the Supreme Court, rejected this argument. The trial court had initially found that the property was part of the Joint Hindu Family, but both the First Appellate Court and the High Court overturned this finding, stating that the defendants failed to provide evidence of the land being joint family property.
3. Adverse Possession and Limitation:
The appellants also claimed adverse possession, arguing that they had been in uninterrupted possession of the land since 1968. The Court, however, ruled that the defendants’ possession was permissive, based on an application they submitted in 1981, which admitted that they held the land as lessees (Adhiyadar) under Rajendra Kumar Gupta. The Court stated that permissive possession could not be transformed into adverse possession unless it was shown that the possession was hostile to the true owner’s title for a continuous period of 12 years.
Citing previous rulings, the Court noted: “The defendants cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner unless they establish that their possession was adverse to the title of the plaintiff for the prescriptive period.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
After examining the evidence and legal principles, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, affirming Rajendra Kumar Gupta’s ownership of the property and rejecting the appellants’ claim to adverse possession. The Court dismissed the appellants’ argument that the sale deed executed in favor of a minor was void, stating that the law allows minors to be transferees of immovable property.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded:
“There is no legal disability preventing the transfer of immovable property to a minor as the sale is not a contract under the Transfer of Property Act.”
The Court also directed that the appellants must vacate the land and hand over possession to Rajendra Kumar Gupta.
The appellants were represented by senior counsel, while the respondent, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, was represented by [Counsel’s Name]. The case, originally filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court, was finally decided in the Supreme Court under Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019.
Case Details
– Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019
– Appellants: Neelam Gupta and Others
– Respondent: Rajendra Kumar Gupta
– Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
