Transactions by Natural Guardian Without Court’s Leave Are Voidable, Not Void: Delhi High Court

“Oral Partition Stands Proven, Minor’s Delay Fatal to Claim” – Delhi High Court dismissing a suit for partition and declaration concerning a family property located at Anand Niketan, New Delhi. The plaintiff, Ms. Neelu Chadha, the granddaughter of the original allottee, late Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi, had sought a declaration that a 2007 mutation and conveyance deed in favour of her uncles were void, and also claimed partition of the property.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, rejecting the claim, held that a valid oral partition and family arrangement effected in 1978 stood proven by evidence and conduct. The court also invoked Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to hold that transactions entered into on behalf of minors are not void ab initio but merely voidable, and unless challenged within the prescribed limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, the arrangement remains binding.

“Plaintiff’s Right To Sue Stood Extinguished With Her Inaction Post-Majority”—Limitation Held Bar to Declaration

At the heart of the plaintiff’s case was the assertion that she became aware only in 2014 that her uncles, the defendants, had mutated the title of the Anand Niketan property exclusively in their names. She sought partition and declaration that the mutation and conveyance deed were illegal. The defendants, in turn, invoked an oral family settlement dated 23.09.1978, executed shortly after the death of her father, Mr. Satish Sethi, under which the residential suit property fell to their share, while the commercial property at Sewa Nagar was allotted to the plaintiff’s branch. They also produced release deeds, payment receipts, and records of mutation and sale of the commercial property to substantiate the arrangement.

The Court took note of the plaintiff’s own representation dated 29.07.2014 (Exhibit PW-1/DX5), where she admitted detailed knowledge of the impugned transactions even before receiving official documents, undermining her claim of late discovery. “A perusal of the same clearly indicates that the plaintiff had knowledge of the impugned mutation prior to 14.08.2014… The representation is couched in a language which reflects ample certainty of facts and preceding events,” the Court noted [Para 23].

Relying on Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the Court held that the limitation period for seeking a declaration is three years from the date the right to sue first accrues. As the plaintiff had knowledge prior to 2014, and no clear contrary evidence was provided, her declaratory relief was time-barred [Paras 24–25].

“Oral Family Arrangement Duly Proved”—Unregistered Release Deed Admissible for Collateral Purpose

On the substantive issue of partition, the Court found that the family had indeed effected an oral partition in 1978. Though the Release Deeds were unregistered, the Court held that under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, they could be read for collateral purposes, i.e., as evidence of the oral family arrangement rather than as instruments of title transfer.

“The said document [release deed] may be appreciated as evidence of the oral partition,” the Court held, distinguishing between using the release deed as a conveyance versus corroborative proof of a prior oral partition [Para 30].

The conduct of the plaintiff’s mother, Defendant No. 3, who signed the release deed, received monetary consideration, and sold the commercial property thereafter, was held to be a tacit admission of the partition having taken place. Notably, neither Defendant No. 3 nor Defendant No. 4 stepped into the witness box to deny these facts [Paras 32–33].

“Transactions Without Court’s Leave Under Section 8 Are Voidable, Not Void”—Failure To Set Aside Arrangement Bars Claim

The plaintiff, a minor at the time of the 1978 partition, argued that the oral arrangement was illegal and non-binding, as it was executed without leave of the court under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. However, the Court referred to Section 8(3) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan [(2001) 6 SCC 163], where it was held that such transactions are voidable and not void.

“There is… little scope for doubt that the alienations made… were voidable at the instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were required to get the alienations set aside if they wanted to avoid the transfers,” the Court quoted with approval [Para 35].

Since the plaintiff attained majority in 1993, any such challenge had to be made within three years, i.e., by 1996. “The suit has been filed only in the year 2014, around twenty-one years after the plaintiff attained majority… Therefore, even if a prayer for setting aside the prior partition is deemed to be inherent in the prayer for partitioning the suit property, the former is barred by limitation” [Para 37].

Oral Partition Ends Jointness—Plaintiff Has No Surviving Right

Having upheld the oral partition and found the declaratory relief time-barred, the Court ruled that no subsisting jointness survived. “In the absence of proof of jointness, there is no question of partition of the suit property. Consequently, the prayer for partition is without any cause of action,” the Court concluded [Para 38].

Further, the Court emphasized the sale of the commercial property by Defendant No. 3 to third parties as conclusive conduct in furtherance of the oral family arrangement. “Their conspicuous silence on this aspect actually raises a question regarding the bona fide nature of the present claim,” the Court observed [Para 39].

The Court, accordingly, dismissed the suit, holding that the claim was devoid of merit and had no surviving legal basis.

Date of Decision: 27 January, 2026