Void sale deeds without consideration cannot divest a joint owner's share, and a pleaded nullity is not defeated by limitation.

A purported sale of immovable property unsupported by any proved consideration is not a sale in law under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and cannot divest the joint owner's undivided share. On the facts stated, the deeds executed by the attorney in favour of his wife and minor sons were treated as void, conferring no right, title or interest on the transferees, so the appellant retained an undivided half share and joint possession. A belated amendment seeking a declaration of invalidity was not barred by limitation because the original plaint had already pleaded that the deeds were null and void, and a void document may be ignored without separate declaratory relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale deeds executed by the attorney in favour of the attorney's wife and minor sons, being unsupported by consideration, were void and ineffective against the appellant's undivided share in the suit properties; (ii) Whether the belated amendment seeking a declaration of invalidity of the power of attorney and sale deeds was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the sale deeds executed by the attorney in favour of the attorney's wife and minor sons, being unsupported by consideration, were void and ineffective against the appellant's undivided share in the suit properties.

Analysis: A sale under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires transfer of ownership in exchange for price. Where no price is shown to have been paid or promised, the transaction is not a sale in the eye of law. The pleadings had already asserted that the impugned deeds were without consideration and sham, and the record contained no evidence that the wife or minor sons had any independent source of income or had paid the stated consideration. The finding that the parties were joint owners remained undisturbed. On these facts, the deeds could not divest the appellant's half share.

Conclusion: The sale deeds were void and conferred no right, title or interest on the transferees. The appellant retained an undivided half share and was entitled to joint possession.

Issue (ii): Whether the belated amendment seeking a declaration of invalidity of the power of attorney and sale deeds was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Since the original plaint itself specifically pleaded that the sale deeds were null and void for want of consideration, the appellant was not introducing a new foundational case by amendment. A void document can be resisted and ignored even in collateral proceedings, and a separate declaratory amendment was unnecessary to preserve the plea.

Conclusion: The bar of limitation did not defeat the appellant's challenge to the impugned sale deeds.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the decree restoring the appellant's joint rights in the suit properties was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A purported sale of immovable property that is unsupported by consideration is void under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and may be ignored even without a separate declaratory relief when the foundational pleading already asserts its nullity.

---