IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37506 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.BHADRA SENAN, AGED 50, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUNNATHOOR HOUSE, MOOLEDAM P.O., NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NATTAKAM VILLAGE OF KOTTAYAM TALUK, NATTAKAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.37506 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P2 sale deed. That sale deed was executed by three persons. One was a minor represented by his guardian and mother, who was also one of the vendors. Thereafter, the petitioner sought mutation of the property in his name under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The same has been rejected on the ground that the sale of the minor's share is not valid in law, insofar as no sanction has been obtained from the concerned court for such sale of minor's share of the property. The petitioner's contention is that the sale of the minor's share is not invalid ipso facto and it is only voidable at the instance of the minor within three years from the date of the minor attaining majority. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent could not have refused mutation of the properties on the ground that the sale of the minor's share in the property is invalid. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that legal opinion had been obtained from the District Govt. Pleader in respect of the matter, who opined that the sale of the minor's share is not valid in law, since no sanction had been obtained from a court for sale of the minor's share. Therefore, in view of the w.p.c.37506/09 2 Rule 14(3) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, mutation could not be effected even in respect of the shares of other vendors, in view of the fact that minor's share has not been separately delineated. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The powers and duties of the guardians are governed by Sections 28 to 30 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which read as follows: “28. Powers of testamentary guardian.- Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other instrument, his power to mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, immovable property belonging to his ward is subject to any restriction which may be imposed by the instrument, unless he has under this Act been declared guardian and the Court which made the declaration permits him by an order in writing, notwithstanding the restriction, to dispose of any immovable property specified in the order in a manner permitted by the order. 29. Limitation of powers of guardian of property appointed or declared by the Court.- Where a person other than a collector, or than a guardian appointed by will or other instrument, has been appointed or declared by the Court to be guardian of the property of a ward, he shall not, without the previous permission of the Court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of his ward, or (b) lease any part of that property for a term exceeding five years or for any term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the ward will cease to be a minor. 30. Voidability of transfers made in contravention of Section 28 or Section 29.- A disposal of immovable property by a guardian in contravention of either of the two last foregoing sections is voidable at the instance of any other person affected thereby.” Similar provisions are there in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act also. In view of those provisions, sale of shares of the minors even without sanction of the court is only voidable at the instance of the w.p.c.37506/09 3 minors within three years from the date of attaining majority. That being so, I am not satisfied that the 2nd respondent can refuse to effect mutation of the property on the ground that the sale in favour of the petitioner in respect of the share of the minor is invalid. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for mutation notwithstanding that the sale of the minor's share in his favour has not been sanctioned by a civil court, provided all other requisite conditions are satisfied, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge