Mother's authority over minors' property and part performance protection can validate sale-related possession in joint family disputes.
Where the father has disclaimed management of joint family property and the mother is in lawful management, she may validly represent minors for a bona fide sale benefiting their estate, even in respect of the minors' undivided interest. The commentary also notes that possession delivered under a written contract and continued in readiness to perform is protected by part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so long as the contract remains enforceable and there is no repudiation or refusal after a call for performance. On that basis, such possession is not treated as unlawful merely because time has passed.
Issues: (i) Whether the contract of sale executed by the mother in respect of the minors' undivided interest in the joint family property was valid and binding; (ii) Whether the appellants' possession under the contract was protected and the suit for possession could succeed.
Issue (i): Whether the contract of sale executed by the mother in respect of the minors' undivided interest in the joint family property was valid and binding.
Analysis: Under Section 9 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian, but where he has disentitled himself or disclaimed management, the mother can act as guardian of the minor's person and property other than the undivided interest in joint family property. Section 12 does not require appointment of a guardian where the property is under the management of an adult member of the family. On the facts, the father had nominated the mother to manage the property, she was in management, and the sale recited that it was for the benefit of the minors' estate. The transaction was supported by consideration and was not shown to be detrimental to the minors' interests.
Conclusion: The contract of sale was valid and binding, and the mother was competent to represent the minors in the circumstances of the case.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' possession under the contract was protected and the suit for possession could succeed.
Analysis: The appellants were placed in possession under the written contract and continued to remain ready and willing to perform their part. The possession, being referable to the contract, attracted the protection of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the absence of repudiation or a call for performance followed by refusal, mere lapse of time did not make the possession unlawful or defeat the contractual protection.
Conclusion: The appellants' possession was protected, and the decree for possession and ejectment could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the trial court was set aside, and the suit for possession and ejectment failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the father has disclaimed management and the mother is in lawful management of joint family property, she may validly represent the minors for a bona fide transaction for the benefit of their estate, and possession delivered under such a written contract is protected by part performance so long as the contract remains enforceable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
