{"id":269696,"date":"1991-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991"},"modified":"2018-02-12T10:20:24","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T04:50:24","slug":"amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","title":{"rendered":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1256, 1991 SCR (2) 389<\/div>\n
Author: T Thommen<\/div>\n
Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAMIRTHAM KUDUMBAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSARNAM KUMDUMBAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1256\t\t  1991 SCR  (2) 389\n 1991 SCC  (3)\t20\t  JT 1991 (2)\t428\n 1991 SCALE  (1)757\n\n\nACT:\n     Hindu  Minority  and Guardianship\tAct<\/a>,\t1956-Section\n8(3)<\/a>  and Section 6 of T.P.   Act-Harmonious  construction--\nLegislative intention of.\n     Hindu  Minority  and Guardianship\tAct<\/a>,  1956--Sections\n5(b)<\/a>,\t8(3)<\/a>   and  Section  6\t of   T.P.   Act--Harmonious\nconstruction--Legislative intention of.\n     Hindu  Minority  and Guardianship\tAct<\/a>,  1956--Sections\n5(b)<\/a>, 8(3)<\/a> and Section 6 of T.P. Act--Alienation of  minor's\nproperty by guardian without Court's permission and  without\nlegal  necessity-Suit for setting aside by tronsferee within\nthree  years of minor's\t attaining  majority-Maintainability\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant purchased the suit property of the  minor\nfrom a person, to whom the same was sold by the father,\t the\nnatural guardian, whereas the respondent purchased the suit-\nproperty from the minor within three years on his  attaining\nmajority.\n     The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against\t the\nappellant  defendant, to set aside the transfer of  property\nmade by the natural guardian and for recovery of  possession\nof property.\n     The  suit was decreed and the decree was  confirmed  by\nthe appellate Court as well as by the High Court.\n     Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court held\tthat\nthe  suit instituted bythe respondent as a  transferee\tfrom\nthe  ex-minor  within three years after the  minor  attained\nmajority  was  not hit by section 6(e)<\/a> of  the\tTransfer  of\nProperty  Act,\t1882,  against\twhich  the  present   appeal\npreferred by the appellant-defendant.\n     The  appellant  contended\tthat the  suit\twas  hit  by\nsection\t 6(e)<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, as  all\tthat\nthe  ex-minor  was in a position to transfer  was  the\tmere\nright to sue to set aside the sale and recover possession of\nthe property transferred by the natural guardian; and\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 390\nthat a person claiming under a minor, referred to in section\n8(3)<\/a>  of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act<\/a>,  1956\t can\nonly be a legal representative of a deceased minor and not a\nperson succeeding to the interest of the minor by reason  of\ntransfer inter vivos.\n     The  contentions  of the respondent were that  the\t ex-\nminor  was competent to bring a suit to set aside  the\tsale\nwithin a period of three years of his attaining majority and\nany person claiming under the minor was equally competent to\ninstitute action for the same purpose; that the suit to\t set\naside  a  sale was not for the enforcement of  any  personal\nright,\tbut a right in property and the suit was not hit  by\nSection\t 6(e)<\/a>  of  the\tT.P.Act;  and  that  the  provisions\ncontained in Section 6<\/a> of the T.P. Act and Section 8<\/a> of\t the\nGuardianship Act were to be read together.\n     On the question, whether the respondent in his capacity\nas  a transferee from the ex-minor was competent to bring  a\nsuit to set aside the sale effected by the minor's guardian,\nwho  had sold the property without obtaining the  permission\nof  the\t Court\tas required under Section  8<\/a>  of  the  Hindu\nMinority  and  Guardianship Act<\/a> 1956 and without  any  legal\nnecessity.\n     Dismissing\t the appeal of the appellant-defendant\tthis\nCourt,\n     HELD:  1. In the instant case, on the facts found,\t the\ntransfer of the property made by the guardian was a voidable\ntransaction  and  it was, therefore, open to  the  minor  to\nchallenge  it and seek recovery of possession. Such a  right\nof  the\t minor is a right or interest in property  which  he\nhimself\t or \"any person claiming under him\" may\t enforce  by\ninstituting  a suit (Section 8(3)<\/a> of the Guardianship  Act).\n\"Any  person claiming under him\" must necessarily include  a\npurchaser. [396G-397A]\n     2. Section 8(3)<\/a> confers a right of suit in the  special\ncircumstances  postulated  therein. The object\tof  the\t Act\nbeing  the  protection\tof the minor,  the  legislature\t has\nthough\tit  fit\t to  confer  a\tright  of  suit\t in  certain\ncircumstances not only on the minor, but also on a person to\nwhom the minor has transferred his rights.[397A-B]\n     3.\t The  right transferred is an interest\tin  property\nwhich  is  capable  of enforcement at the  instance  of\t the\ntransferee  as it was at the instance of the ex-minor  prior\nto the transfer. Such a provision intended specially for the\nprotection  of the interests of the minor, must be  read  in\nharmony and consistently with the general provisions con-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       391\ntained in section 6<\/a> of the T.P. Act. [397B-C].\n     4.\t A construction which is unduly restrictive  of\t the\nstatory\t provisions  intended  for the\tprotections  of\t the\ninterests of the minor must be avoided. [397F-G]\n     5.\t The  transfer made by the father during  his  son's\nminority was voidable at the instance of his son who was the\nreal owner, and any person purchasing such property from the\nnatural guardian obtained only a defeasible title. The minor\nretained a right in the property to defeat existing  adverse\nclaims, and such right is an assignable right. [397D-E]\n     The J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. v.\t The\nState  of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1961] 3 S.C.R.185, 194\t and\nAshoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors<\/a>.,\n[1990] 3JT SC 417, 439, followed.\n     Palaniappa Goundan v. Nallappa Goundan & Ors<\/a>., AIR 1951\nMadras\t817  and P.Kamaraju v. C.Gunnayya & Ors<\/a>.,  AIR\t1924\nMadras 322, approved.\n     Jhaverbhai\t Hathibhai  Patel v. Kabhai Bechar  Patel  &\nOrs<\/a>.,  AIR  1933 Bom.42; Mon Mohan Battacharjee\t &  Ors.  v.\nBidhu  Bhusan  Dutta & Ors<\/a>., AIR 1939 Cal. 460:\t and  Palani\nGoundan & Anr. v. Vanjiakkal & Anr<\/a>., [1956] I.L.R. Mad.1062,\nover-ruled.\n     Preprakash\t Surajmal v. Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal<\/a>.\nNagpur\t&Ors.,\tA.I.R. 1969 Bom.361; and Ghanshyam  Dass  v.\nDr.Shiva  Shankar  Lal & Ors., [1980] All Law  Journal\t130,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.951  of
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  29.7.1976  of\t the
\nMadras High Court in S.A. No.89 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     A.T.M. Sampath and P.N.Ramalingam for the Appellant.
\n     S.Balakrishnan and S.Prasad for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     THOMMEN,  J.  The appellant is the defendant in a\tsuit
\ninsti-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 392<\/span><\/p>\n
tuted by the respondent to set aside a transfer of  property
\nmade  by  the  guardian\t of a  minor  and  for\trecovery  of
\npossession  of the property.  The suit was decreed, and\t the
\ndecree was confirmed by the first appellate court as well as
\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The  plaintiff-respondent purchased the  suit  property
\nfrom an ex-minor within three years after the minor attained
\nmajority.  During his minority, the property was sold by his
\nfather\tas  his natural guardian to a person from  whom\t the
\npresent\t appellant purchased the property.  All\t the  courts
\nfound  that the guardian had not obtained the permission  of
\nthe  Court  for\t the sale of the property,  as\trequired  by
\nsection\t 8<\/a>  of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship  Act<\/a>,\t1956
\n(“the  Guardianship Act<\/a>“) and that the sale of the  property
\nwas not for legal necessity.\n<\/p>\n
     Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court held\tthat
\nthe  suit  was\trightly instituted by the  respondent  as  a
\ntransferee  from the ex-minor within three years  after\t the
\nminor  attained\t majority  and that the\t contention  of\t the
\ndefendant  that the suit by a transferee from  the  ex-minor
\nwas  hit  by section 6(e)<\/a> of the Transfer of  Property\tAct,
\n1882 was unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     The  only question which arises in the present  appeal,
\nas  it did before the High Court, is (to quote the words  of
\nthe High Court)
\n\t “Whether  a  transferee  from\ta  minor  after\t  he
\n\t attained majority, can file a suit to set aside the
\n\t alienation made by the minor’s guardian or the said
\n\t right is one to be exercised only by the minor?”.
\n     The relevant facts are that the suit property  belonged
\nto  one\t Veerammal.  She had a daughter by  name  Kaliammal.
\nVeerammal  died shortly after she purchased the property  in
\n1948.\tShe  left  behind her  husband\tKandayya  and  their
\nduaghter Kaliammal.  Subsequently, Kandayya married a second
\ntime when his daughter Kaliammal was a minor.  She thereupon
\nleft her father’s house and resided with her maternal grand-
\nfather\twho  protected\tand  maintained\t her.\tDuring\t her
\nminority,  Kandayya  sold  the\tproperty  on  29.10.1959  to
\nJainulavudeen.\tOn 25.4.1966, Jainulavudeen in turn sold the
\nproperty  to  the  defendant-appellant.\t  Subsequently,\t  on
\n26.5.1966 the plaintiff obtained a deed of sale of the\tsuit
\nproperty  in  his  favour from Kaliammal  who  had  by\tthen
\nattained majority.  The Plaintiff thereafter instituted\t the
\npresent suit (O.S. No. 491 of 1968) against the appellant to
\nset aside the transfer of property made by Kandayya and\t for
\nrecovery of its possession.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       393<\/span><\/p>\n
     The question is whether the respondent in his  capacity
\nas  a transferee from the ex-minor was competent to bring  a
\nsuit to set aside the sale effected by the minor’s guardian.
\nIt  is no longer disputed that the suit was  brought  within
\nthree  years after the minor attained majority.\t Nor  is  it
\nany  longer contended that the father of the minor,  as\t her
\nnatural\t guardian, had obtained the permission of the  Court
\nor  that  the  sale  effected  by  him\twas  one  for  legal
\nnecessity.   These two vital points have  been\tconcurrently
\nfound against the appellant.  The only contention which\t Mr.
\nSampath,  appearing for the appellant, is in a\tposition  to
\nurge  is as regards the question whether the suit is hit  by
\nsection 6(e)<\/a> of the T.P. Act. Counsel says that all that the
\nex-minor  was in a position to transfer, was her mere  right
\nto  sue to set aside the sale and recover possession of\t the
\nproperty transferred by her father as her natural  guardian.
\nThe property itself had been transferred by the father prior
\nto  its sale by the ex-minor.  The minor had, therefore,  no
\nproperty  to  sell, except a right to set  aside  the  sale.
\nAccordingly,  whatever\ttransfer that was  effected  by\t the
\nminor  in  favour of the plaintiff was nothing more  than  a
\nmere right to sue and such transfer was invalid by reason of
\nsection 6(e)<\/a> of the T.P. Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.   Balakrishnan,  appearing  for   the\t respondent-
\nplaintiff, contends that the ex-minor was fully competent to
\nbring a suit to set aside the sale within a period of  three
\nyears after attaining majority and any person claiming under
\nher  is equally competent to institute action for  the\tsame
\npurpose.  He refers to the provisions of section 8(3)<\/a> of the
\nGuardianship  Act.  He contends that a suit to set  aside  a
\nsale is not for the enforcement of any personal right, but a
\nright  in  property, and is, therefore, not hit\t by  section
\n6(e)<\/a>  of the T.P. Act.\tIn any view, counsel  says,  section
\n8(3)<\/a> of the Guardianship Act sepcifically allows such a suit
\nto  be\tbrought\t by a person claiming  under  a\t minor\tand,
\ntherefore,  such a statutory right specially granted  by  an
\nenactment dealing with the protection of the minor cannot be
\ndefeated by the general provisions of an earlier  enactment.
\nThe  two provisions, counsel says, can be read\tharmoniously
\nso   as\t  to  avoid  an\t artificial  conflict.\t  What\t the
\nGuardianship Act<\/a> intends to protect is the right of a person
\nclaiming under a minor to sue for setting aside the sale  of
\nproperty  sold otherwise than as permitted by section  8<\/a>  of
\nthe  Act.   On the other hand, the T.P. Act<\/a>  only  prohibits
\nsuits  in the the nature of champerty and maintenance  based
\non bare or naked right of litigation.  The general provision
\ncontained in section 6(e)<\/a> of the T.P. Act does not  derogate
\nfrom the special protection of the minor’s interest and\t the
\ninterest of a person claiming under him, as afforded by\t the
\nGuardianship Act<\/a>, which is addressed to a specific  problem,
\nIn any view, counsel says a sale by the guardian
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       394<\/span>
\notherwise  than\t as permitted by section 8<\/a> is void  and\t is,
\ntherefore,  incapable  of  passing a title.  For  all  these
\nreasons, Mr. Balakrishna submits that the suit was competent
\nand  was rightly decreed on the facts found and the   appeal
\nby the defendant has no merits.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t concurrently  found by the courts below,  the\tsale
\neffected by the guardian during the minority of his daughter
\nwas  not in compliance with the provisions of section  18(i)<\/a>
\nof  the Guardianship Act.  The property was  transferred  by
\nhim  without obtaining the previous permission of the  Court
\nand the transfer was not for the benefit of the minor.\tSuch
\na sale by the minor’s father who is his natural guardian is,
\nunlike\tin  the\t case of transfer by  a\t de  facto  guardian
\n(Section  11<\/a>),\tnot a void sale, but only a  voidable  sale.
\nSuch  a\t sale until set aside is sufficiently  effective  to
\npass  title, but being a voidable sale, what the  buyer\t has
\nobtained  is  a defeasible title which is liable to  be\t set
\naside at the instance of the person entitled to impeach\t it.
\nSection 8(3)<\/a> of the Guardianship Act says:
\n\t “Any  disposal of immovable property by  a  natural
\n\t guardian,  in contravention of sub-section  (1)  or
\n\t sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the
\n\t minor or any person claiming under him.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (emphasis supplied)
\n     The effect of this sub-section is that any disposal  of
\nimmovable property by a natural guardian otherwise than\t for
\nthe  benefit of the minor or without obtaining the  previous
\npermission  of the Court is voidable.  A person entitled  to
\navoid such a sale is either the minor or any person claiming
\nunder  him.  This means that either the minor, or his  legal
\nrepresentative in the event of his death, or his  successor-
\nin-interest  claiming under him by reason of transfer  inter
\nvivos,\tmust bring action within the period  prescribed\t for
\nsuch  a suit, i.e., three years from the date on  which\t the
\nminor died or attained majority, as the case may be.  In the
\npresent\t case, the suit was brought, as found by the  courts
\nbelow, within three years after the minor attained majority.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Sampath, however, contends that a person  claiming
\nunder  a minor, referred to in section 8(3)<\/a>, can only  be  a
\nlegal  representative of a deceased minor and not  a  person
\nsucceeding  to\tthe  interests of the  minor  by  reason  of
\ntransfer  inter\t vivos.\t  He  refers  to  the  decisions  in
\nJhaverbhai Hathibhai Patel v. Kabhai Bechar Patel & Ors<\/a>, AIR
\n1933 Bom. 42; Mon Mohan Bhattacharjee & Ors. v. Bidhu Bhusan
\nDutta  &  Ors<\/a>., AIR 1939 Cal 460; Palani Goundan &  Anr.  v.
\nVanjiakkal &
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       395<\/span>
\nAnr<\/a>.,  [1956]  I.L.R.  Mad. 1062;  Premprakash\tSurajmal  v.
\nMaharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal,\t Nagpur\t &  Ors<\/a>.,  AIR\t1969
\nBom.361 and Ghanshyam Dass v. Dr. Shiva Shankar Lal &  Ors.,
\n[1980] All. Law Journal 130 and other cases in which certain
\nHigh Courts have taken the view that the right of the  minor
\nis  a personal right and it cannot be transferred  otherwise
\nthan  by  inheritence.\t The  “person  claiming\t under\thim”
\nmentioned  under  section  8(3)<\/a>\t of  the  Guardianship\tAct,
\ncounsel\t says,\tcan  only  be a\t representative\t and  not  a
\npurchaser  or transferee inter vivos.  He refers to  Article
\n60<\/a>  of\tthe  Limitation\t Act<\/a>, 1963  and\t submits   that\t the
\nprovision refers only to a legal representative and not\t any
\nother successor.\n<\/p>\n
     In Jhaverbhai Hathibhai Patel v. Kabhai Bechar Patel  &
\nOrs<\/a>., AIR 1933 Bom. 42, it was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t “what was assigned by the minor to the plaintiff in
\n\t that suit was not the property in question but\t his
\n\t right to sue for it, and if he could establish\t his
\n\t allegation, to have the sale avoided, this I  think
\n\t was  no  more\tthan a right of suit, and  if  I  am
\n\t correct  such a transfer is forbidden by S. 6<\/a>,\t Cl.\n<\/p>\n
\t (e), T.P. Act<\/a>.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar reasoning was adopted in  the other decisions  cited
\nby  Mr.\t Sampath  on  the point.   The\trationale  of  these
\ndecisions  is that the right to impeach a sale\teffected  by
\nthe guradian is a personal right vested in the minor and  it
\nis  not\t transferable inter vivos.  The\t expression  “person
\nclaiming  under him”, according to this line  of  reasoning,
\nmust, therefore, be understood as a legal representative and
\nnot an assignee.\n<\/p>\n
     On the other hand, a Division Bench of the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt in P. Kamaraju v. C. Gunnayya & Ors<\/a>., AIR 1924  Madras
\n322 held that the right of the minor was not a bare right to
\nsue and it was an assignable right.  The High Court held:
\n\t “. . . . .By selling the property to the  plaintiff
\n\t on the footing that the sale by the mother was\t not
\n\t binding  on him he has chosen to avoid it, and\t the
\n\t result of it is that from his point of view he\t has
\n\t got a complete title.\tThe title no doubt will only
\n\t be effective if the Court ultimately finds that the
\n\t sale  by  the mother is not binding  on  him.\t But
\n\t contingent  on\t that event he has  got\t a  complete
\n\t title and this title is not a bare right to sue and
\n\t is, therfore, assignable. . . . . . . . ..”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       396<\/span><\/p>\n
In  Palaniappa Goundan v. Nallappa Goundan & Ors<\/a>., AIR\t1951
\nMadras 817, Viswanatha Sastri, J. observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Where\t    an\t  ex-minor    transfers\t    property
\n\t unauthorisedly\t sold  by his  guardian\t during\t his
\n\t minority  he transfers not a mere right to use\t but
\n\t his interest in the property, though a suit may  be
\n\t necessary  to avoid the transfer by the guardian  &
\n\t recover   possession  of  the\tproperty  from\t his
\n\t alienee.    Conversely,   the\tliability   of\t the
\n\t transferee from the guardian is not a liability  to
\n\t pay  damages  for  the\t unauthorised  act  of\t the
\n\t guardian,  but\t is  a\tliability  to  restore\t the
\n\t property to the rightful owner or his transferee”.
\nSimilar\t view  was expressed in Karnam Nagabhushana  Rao  v.
\nKarnam Gowramma & Ors., [1968] 2 Andhra Weekly Reporter\t 57.
\nThese  decisions on which reliance was placed by the  Madras
\nHigh  Court in the impugned judgment are to the effect\tthat
\nthe  right of the minor is not a bare or naked right to\t sue
\nbut a right in property which is assignable.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Halsbury’s  Laws  of England,\t4th  edn.,  Vol.  6,
\nparagraphs 86-87 at pages 49-50, this is what is stated
\n\t “A  bare right of litigation, such as a mere  right
\n\t to  damages for a wrongful act, is not\t assignable,
\n\t on  the principle that the law will  not  recognise
\n\t any   transaction  savouring  of   maintenance\t  or
\n\t champerty.\n<\/p>\n
\t  By  way  of exception to the rule  stated  in\t the
\n\t previous  paragraph there is nothing  unlawful\t  in
\n\t the  purchase of property which the  purchaser\t can
\n\t only enjoy by defeating existing adverse claims, or
\n\t in  the  assignment (for example  by  mortgage)  of
\n\t property, being the fruits of litigation.  In every
\n\t case it is a question whether the purchaser’s\treal
\n\t object was to acquire an interest in the  property,
\n\t or  merely to acquire a right to bring\t an  action,
\n\t either alone or jointly with the vendor . . . .”.
\n     In\t the instant case, on the facts found, the  transfer
\nof  the\t property  made\t by  the  guardian  was\t a  voidable
\ntransaction  and  it was, therefore, open to  the  minor  to
\nchallenge it and seek recovery of possession.  Such a  right
\nof the minor is a right or interest in property
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       397<\/span>
\nwhich  he  himself or “any person claiming  under  him”\t may
\nenforce\t  by  instituting  a  suit  [Section  8(3)<\/a>  of\t the
\nGuardianship  Act].  “Any person claiming  under  him”\tmust
\nnecessarily include a purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  8(3)<\/a>  confers a right of suit in\tthe  special
\ncircumstances  postulated in that provision.  The object  of
\nthe  Act being the protection of the minor, the\t legislature
\nhas  thought  it fit to confer a right of  suit\t in  certain
\ncircumstances not only on the minor, but also on a person to
\nwhom  the  minor  has transferred  his\trights.\t  The  right
\ntransferred  is an interest in property which is capable  of
\nenforcement  at the instance of the transferee as it was  at
\nthe instance of the ex-minor prior to the transfer.  Such  a
\nprovision,  indeed  specially  for  the\t protection  of\t the
\ninterests  of  the  minor,  must  be  read  in\tharmony\t and
\nconsistently  with  the\t general  provisions  contained\t  in
\nsection\t 6<\/a> of the T.P. Act. [See The J.K. Cotton Spinning  &
\nWeaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors<\/a>.,
\n[1961] 3 S.C.R. 185, 194 and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. v.
\nPunjab National Bank & Ors<\/a>., [1990] 3 JT SC 417, 439].\n<\/p>\n
     The  transfer  made  by the  father  during  his  son’s
\nminority was voidable at the instance of his son who was the
\nreal owner, and any person purchasing such property from the
\nnatural\t guardian  obtained only a  defeasible\ttitle.\t The
\nminor  retained a right in the property to  defeat  existing
\nadverse\t claims, and such right is an assignable right.\t  We
\nare  in complete agreement with what has been stated on\t the
\npoint in Palaniappa Goundan v. Nallappa Goundan & Ors<\/a>.,\t AIR
\n1951  Madras 817 and in P. Kamaraju v. C. Gunnayya  &  Ors<\/a>.,
\nAIR 1924 Madras 322.  We do not agree with the contrary view
\nexpressed  on  the point in Jhaverbhai\tHathibhai  Patel  v.
\nKabhai\tBechar\tPatel & Ors<\/a>., AIR 1933 Bom.  42;  Mon  Mohan
\nBattacharjee & Ors. v. Bidhu Bhushan Dutta & Ors<\/a>., AIR\t1939
\nCal.  460  and Palani Goundan & Anr. v. Vanjiakkal  &  Anr<\/a>.,
\n[1956] I.L.R. Mad. 1062.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tconstruction  which  is unduly\trestrictive  of\t the
\nstatutory  provisions  intended for the\t protection  of\t the
\ninterest of the minor must be avoided.\tThis is all the more
\nso  in\tview of section 5(b)<\/a> of the Guardianship  Act  which
\nsays.\n<\/p>\n
\t “5.  Save as otherwise expressly provided  in\tthis
\n\t Act\n<\/p>\n
\t (a)  …………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
\t (b)  any other law in force immediately before\t the
\n\t com-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       398<\/span><\/p>\n
\t mencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in
\n\t so  far  as  it is inconsistent  with\tany  of\t the
\n\t provisions contained in this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
     For  the reasons stated by us, we see no merit  in\t the
\nchallenge against the judgment under appeal.  The appeal  is
\naccordingly dismissed.\tWe do no, however, make any order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       399<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1256, 1991 SCR (2) 389 Author: T Thommen Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J) PETITIONER: AMIRTHAM KUDUMBAH Vs. RESPONDENT: SARNAM KUMDUMBAN DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1991 BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION: 1991 AIR 1256 1991 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAmirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2649,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\",\"name\":\"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991","datePublished":"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991"},"wordCount":2649,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991","name":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T04:50:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amirtham-kudumbah-vs-sarnam-kumdumban-on-16-april-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}