Brief Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession based on title besides claiming damages. It was averred that he purchased the suit schedule property via a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1968 from one Late Sh.Sitaram Gupta and enjoyed peaceful possession till he was dispossessed by the original defendants in the month of July, 1983.
The defendants’ contention stood on the point that Sitaram was only 17 years old and a minor when the property was transferred to him, and hence he was not legally competent to transfer it to the plaintiffs in 1968, as he did not possess valid title over the suit property when he purchased in the year 1963.
Both the trial court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favour of the defendants. However, on a Second Appeal, the High Court overturned the decision, a finding which was upheld by the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 3159-3160 of 2019.
Discussion
The bench comprising of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumarobserved that there is no legal restriction on the transfer of immovable property in favour of a minor through a sale deed. Quoting sale is not a contract.
The Hon’ble Apex Court referred sections 6(h),7 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for competence.
“Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act provides inter alia, that no transfer can be made to a person legally disqualified to be a transferee.” Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with persons competent to transfer. It provides that every person competent to contract is competent to transfer property to the extent and in the manner allowed and prescribed by any law for the time being in force. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides as to who are competent to contract and it provides that every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject (of course the reference is to the Indian Majority Act, 1875) and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that as per Section 11 of the Contract Act, a minor person lacks the capacity to enter into a contract. Stating the same the Court held that since a sale cannot be considered as a valid contract, Section 11 becomes superfluous in cases involving the sale to a minor.
“Though an agreement to sell is a contract of sale, going by its definition under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale cannot be said to be a contract. Sale, going by the definition thereunder, is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. The conjoint reading of all the aforesaid relevant provisions would undoubtedly go to show that they would not come in the way of transfer of an immovable property in favour of a minor or in other words, they would invariably suggest that a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property.”,
Verdict
Thus the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a minor can be a transferee of immovable property through a sale deed, as a sale is not considered a contract.
Party
Neelam Gupta & Ors. …Appellant(s) Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. …Respondent(s) – Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019 – 2024 INSC 769 – October 14, 2024.
