Skip to content


Rambhau Ganjaram Vs. Rajaram Laxman and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.A.D. No. 554 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1956Bom250
ActsHindu Law; Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 20, Rule 12(1)
AppellantRambhau Ganjaram
RespondentRajaram Laxman and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR.B. Kotwal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.D. Tulzapurkar, Adv.
Excerpt:
it was adjudged that where, the marriage of the minor was performed in violation of the provisions of child marriage restraint act, 1929, the alienation effected for the purposes of satisfying those debts which have incurred by the de facto guardian for the purposed which are not lawful, cannot be regarded as a lawful alienation binding upon the minors - .....incurred for doing an illegal act cannot be regarded as a lawful debt. the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs anandrao genba being a de facto guardian, and the debt having been incurred for purposes, which were not lawful, the alienation effected for purposes of satisfying those debts cannot be regarded as a lawful alienation binding upon the minors.the authority for that proposition is to dei found in -- 'tattya mohyaji v. rabha dadaji' : air1953bom273 . a division bench of this court held in that case that 'expenses incurred in connection with the marriage of a hindu child, whose marriage has taken place in contravention of the child mar-riage restraint act, 1929, cannot constitute legal necessity under the hindu law'.similarly in that case it was held that an alienation effected of.....
Judgment:

1. One Laxman died in the year 1938 leaving him surviving three sons and a widow Chandrabhagabai. On the death of Lax-man, Chandrabhagabai entered upon the management of her husband's property, his sons being all minors. Chandrabhagabai died in the year 1943 and one Anandrao maternal uncle of the plaintiffs entered upon the management of the property of the minor sons of Laxman and posed himself as de facto guardian of the minors.

On 27-10-1943 Anandrao de facto guardian of the plaintiffs sold certain properties belonging to the minor plaintiffs to the defendant for satisfying debts which had been incurred for the marriage ceremony of plaintiff 1 which had taken place about six months before October 1943.

After plaintiff 1 attained the age of majority plaintiff 1 filed suit No. 84 of 1940 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Shrigonda, against the defendant for a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.10-1943 passed by Anandrao, their maternal uncle as their guardian was void and not binding on them and for possession of the property together with future mesne profits and for costs of the suit.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that Anandrao Genba who sold the property was the natural guardian of the plaintiffs during their minority and the property was sold for legal necessity and for the benefit to the estate, and therefore the sale was binding upon the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge held that Anandrao Genba -- the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs -- was a de facto guardian of the plaintiffs and that the sale deed was executed by him for purposes of legal necessity.

On that view of the case the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. In appeal to the District Court at Ahmednagar, the learned District Judge reversed the decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Appellate Judge held that Anandrao Genba was a de facto guardian of the plaintiffs after the death of their mother, but there was no necessity to sell the land, and therefore the sale deed was void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

The learned appellate Judge also held that by making an application to the Debt Adjustment Court on the footing that the transaction of the year 1943 was in the nature of a mortgage plaintiff 1 could not be regarded as having ratified the transaction after he attained the age of majority. The learned appellate Judge accordingly reversed the decree passed by the trial Court and passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff together with mesne profits to be ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12(1) (c) of the Civil, P. C. The defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.

3. On the findings of the Courts below it is evident that the debts for the satisfaction of which the land was sold by Anandrao Genba were debts incurred for defraying the marriage expenses of plaintiff 1 who was married about six months before October 1943. Normally, such expenses may be regarded as expenses incurred for purposes of legal necessity. But the marriage of plaintiff 1 was performed in violation of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929.

The marriage of plaintiff 1 having taken place contrary to the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act the persons who helped to bring about the marriage and participated in it committed an offence, and a debt incurred for doing an illegal act cannot be regarded as a lawful debt. The maternal uncle of the plaintiffs Anandrao Genba being a de facto guardian, and the debt having been Incurred for purposes, which were not lawful, the alienation effected for purposes of satisfying those debts cannot be regarded as a lawful alienation binding upon the minors.

The authority for that proposition Is to Dei found in -- 'Tattya Mohyaji v. Rabha Dadaji' : AIR1953Bom273 . A Division Bench of this Court held in that case that

'expenses incurred in connection with the marriage of a Hindu child, whose marriage has taken place in contravention of the Child Mar-riage Restraint Act, 1929, cannot constitute legal necessity under the Hindu law'.

Similarly in that case it was held that an alienation effected of minor's property by a de facto guardian which was not justified by legal necessity is void and it confers no title upon the alienee. The defendant therefore acquired no title under the sale deed dated 22-10-1943.

Even if it be held that by reason of making an application to the Debt Adjustment Court, the first plaintiff assented to the alienation, it cannot amount to ratification as the alienation was void and the plaintiffs were entitled to file a suit to set aside the alienation. The learned District Judge was therefore right in passing a decree for possession and mesne profits. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

7. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //