Father Cannot Deny Son’s Ownership of Property Purchased in His Name as Minor: Kerala High Court

“The mother of the child is the most competent person who could state the correct date of birth of her child”, Kerala High Court at Ernakulam delivered a decisive ruling upholding the ownership rights of a son over property purchased in his name while he was a minor.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed the father’s appeal against the decree of the Sub Court, Ottapalam, holding that the father could not now disown the property vested in his son by arguing that the “minor Basheer” named in the deeds was someone else or a fictitious child. The Court underscored that “the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the son of the defendant by name Basheer… nobody else came forward with any claim of title.”

The plaintiff, Basheer, filed a suit for declaration and injunction over land purchased in his name through two assignment deeds of 1983. He asserted that the deeds mistakenly recorded his age as six years instead of six months, but they clearly vested title in him.

The defendant, his own father, contested the claim saying that the plaintiff was not even born on the date of the deeds. He alleged that the properties were purchased in the name of a “non-existent minor” only to avoid ceiling restrictions, and therefore his son could not claim ownership.

The trial court decreed in favour of the son, prompting the father’s appeal.

“The Mother of the Child Is the Most Competent Person”

The Court closely examined conflicting records. The plaintiff’s birth certificate showed 01.10.1983 as his date of birth, which would make him unborn at the time of the 1983 deeds. But his mother, examined as PW2, testified unequivocally that her son was born on 01.10.1982, a year earlier.

Her evidence remained unchallenged in cross-examination. The Court held:

“The mother of the child is the most competent person who could state the correct date of birth of her child. There is absolutely no grounds to disbelieve her unchallenged testimony.”

Thus, the Court found that the certificate’s presumption was rebuttable and was outweighed by the mother’s credible oral evidence.

Father’s Defence “Difficult to Digest”

Rejecting the father’s story of a fictitious Basheer, the Court observed:

“It cannot be disputed that the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the son of the defendant by name Basheer… The strange defence taken by the defendant in this case against the plaintiff, his own son, is because of the estranged relation between them.”

The Court found that the deeds themselves showed the father purchasing the property on behalf of his minor son, thereby vesting title in the child.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner: “Minor Basheer mentioned in Exts.A1 and A2 is none other than the plaintiff… the plaint schedule property covered by the assignment deeds were purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff, while he was a minor.”

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, in light of the family relationship.

The ruling sends a strong message: once property is purchased in the name of a minor, the parent cannot later deny the child’s ownership by fabricating claims of fictitious identity or documentary error.

By elevating the mother’s unchallenged testimony over a doubtful birth certificate, the Court reaffirmed that oral evidence of impeccable reliability can prevail over documentary presumptions, particularly where the father himself executed the purchase on behalf of his son.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2025