The Karnataka High Court held that after the guardian has executed the sale deed, unless a suit for cancellation of the document or for a declaration that the document is not valid has been filed, the legal heirs cannot challenge the sale deed as a void document.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "Though not joined along with her minors as guardian to execute the said sale deed, law is also very clear that mother cannot act as a natural guardian. Even assuming that she is a de facto guardian and no right has been conveyed but the very document has not been questioned either by the daughters or by herself by filing a suit for cancellation of document or for declaration. Once she has executed the sale deed, unless the document has been annulled or cancelled or any relief of declaration to declare that same is not valid, the question of execution of Will... in respect of the very property does not arise."

Counsel GK Bhavana and Counsel Ajay D Patil appeared for the appellant, while Counsel RV Jayaprakash appeared for the respondents.

The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding a wetland purchased by their father in 1949. They claimed possession and enjoyment of the land, which was managed by their uncles after their father's death.

However, the defendants, including Mastanbi and her daughter Bibi Jan, contested the sale's validity, asserting their own ownership through succession and a registered will.

Despite initial success in the Trial Court, the plaintiffs faced setbacks on appeal, with the First Appellate Court dismissing their suit. The appellants argued that crucial evidence, such as a valid sale deed and their long-standing possession, was not properly considered. They contended that the First Appellate Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's decision and failed to acknowledge the weaknesses in the defendants' arguments, including inconsistencies and adverse possession claims.

The High Court observed that once the legal heirs of the respondents' mother accepted the execution of the sale deed, "impliedly then they definitely cannot subsequently challenge the said sale deed as a void document.... once they admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners and claims that they are the tenants and also when the sale deed is of the year 1949 and even till date, they have not challenged the said sale deed either seeking the relief of cancellation by the original executant of the sale deed or seeking the relief of declaration by the defendants to declare that the said document is not a valid document, they estopped from the same and law of acquiescence is applicable to the case on hand."

In light of the same, the Court noted that, "The Trial Court considered the aspect of not questioning the document of sale deed and now the said document is almost 75 years old, but till date, not questioned the said document. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court."

Subsequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside.

Appearances:

Appellant: Counsel GK Bhavana, Ajay D Patil

Respondents: Counsel RV Jayaprakash

Cause Title: Sajida & Anr vs Bibi Jan & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice HP SandeshPossession of Land

Verdictum News Desk