Father Not Custodian, Sale Without Court’s Permission Is Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Sale of Minor’s Share Invalid in Joint Family Property

“The minor plaintiffs’ father is not competent to dispose of the undivided 2/3rd share of the minor plaintiffs under the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant” - In a significant judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court declared that the sale deed executed by a father, purporting to transfer his minor children’s share in ancestral property without permission of the Court, was void and unenforceable against the minors. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held that, “The father, who was not even the custodian of the minors, had no authority to alienate their undivided share without judicial sanction as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.”

The Court partially allowed the appeal, affirming that only the father’s own 1/3rd share in the property could be lawfully transferred, while declaring the deed void to the extent of the 2/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs.

“Custody Lies with Maternal Grandfather, Not the Father”: Court Upholds Legitimacy of Suit Filed on Behalf of Minors
The dispute stemmed from a suit filed in 2002 by two minor siblings through their maternal grandfather, seeking a declaration that a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2001, executed by their father in favour of the defendant, was null and void. The minors’ mother, Swarna Kumari, had died under suspicious circumstances in 1998, followed by police investigation and post-mortem. The father was briefly taken into custody, and the children remained in the care of their maternal grandfather.

Addressing the defendant’s objection that the suit was improperly filed by someone other than a court-appointed guardian, the Court rejected the plea, observing: “Rule 1 of Order XXXII CPC merely contemplates that a suit by minor shall be represented by his next friend, but it does not specify that the said next friend has to obtain permission of the Court.”

It was further noted that, “From the date of death of plaintiffs’ mother, the plaintiffs are under the custody of their maternal grandfather... both the plaintiffs were declared as majors during the pendency of the suit and prosecuted the proceedings themselves thereafter.”

“Sale by Father Without Court's Leave Invalid for Minors' Share”: Court Finds Sale Deed Fraudulent and Void

Justice Rao underscored that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act mandates prior Court approval before alienation of a minor’s immovable property. The Court declared:

“No such permission was obtained by the minor plaintiffs’ father... therefore, the sale to the extent of the 2/3rd share belonging to the minor plaintiffs is void.”

The father, who was not living with the children and not managing the property or their affairs, could not have validly acted as their guardian in law. The Court found the father was not the de facto or de jure guardian at the time of sale and had no authority to transfer the minors’ shares.

“Entire Transaction Built on Suspicion and Self-serving Claims”: Court Rejects Defense of Bona Fide Debt Repayment
The defendant claimed the property was sold to repay a ₹38,000 loan allegedly taken by the deceased mother. The Court disbelieved this assertion, noting that the defendant himself was the scribe of the pronote and that attestors included his wife and tenant. The alleged creditor—Surendra Reddy—was not examined, even though he was described as working in the defendant’s office.

“The borrowing of amount by Swarna Kumari from Surendra Reddy is highly doubtful.”

Further casting doubt, the Court observed that the endorsement of loan repayment was recorded at 4:30 p.m. in Hyderabad, while the registration of the sale deed had occurred between 1:00–2:00 p.m. in Mylavaram the same day.

“It is highly impossible for anybody to reach Mylavaram from Hyderabad within a short span of two hours.”

“Only the Father’s Share Can Be Transferred”: Court Modifies Decree, Preserves 1/3rd Sale
The plaintiffs also referenced a prior agreement of sale dated 19.08.1998 where the father had agreed to sell his 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs’ maternal grandfather. However, since no registered deed was executed, the Court concluded that the father’s own 1/3rd share had validly passed under the registered sale deed of 25.06.2001.

The Court held: “The plaintiffs are not having any right in the 1/3rd undivided share of their father in view of the alienation made... in respect of his 1/3rd undivided share.”
Therefore, the decree was modified accordingly.
The High Court has reaffirmed that minors’ undivided interests in ancestral or joint family property cannot be alienated by a parent without explicit Court sanction. The decision also reinforces the standing of a next friend under Order XXXII CPC when parents are deceased, and the primacy of documentary evidence over self-serving recitals in sale deeds.

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao concluded: “The sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is void in respect of 2/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs and is not binding on them... however, valid to the extent of 1/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs’ father.”

Date of Decision: May 2, 2025