M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal and Ors.
Background
After a man died intestate in 1971, his property was to be shared by his two sons and three daughters along with his widow. One daughter, then a minor, was represented by her mother in a 1973 release deed giving up her share in favour of her two brothers. Decades later, after attaining majority and staying silent for years, she sued claiming the release deed was void because her mother had no authority to give away her share without court permission. The trial court dismissed her suit, but the High Court held the deed void and ruled in her favour, prompting one brother's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the inherited property devolved on the individual legal heirs (including the daughters) under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, not as undivided joint family property, so the mother, as natural guardian, validly could act on behalf of her minor daughter, and a brother acting as "Karta" could not have been the appropriate guardian given the conflict of interest. Even assuming it was joint family property, the release deed was at most "voidable," not void, and should have been challenged within three years of the daughter attaining majority, which was not done. The Court also noted the daughter's own husband had witnessed later partition and settlement deeds, showing she was aware of the arrangement all along. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A deed signed by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor in a family property settlement is not automatically void: at most it can be challenged ("voidable") within three years of the minor reaching adulthood, and failing to act within that window can permanently bar the claim.