The Allahabad High Court has held that although a mother had no authority to sell the shares of her minor sons without legal necessity or permission from the competent authority, the sons subsequently lost their right to challenge the transactions after attaining majority because they neither repudiated the sale deeds within time nor took effective legal steps to set them aside.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery has made a crucial distinction between a void and voidable transaction. The Court noted that the sale deeds were executed without permission of the competent authority and not for the benefit of the minors, but observed that such transactions were merely voidable and not void ab initio.
The dispute related to several agricultural plots situated in village Sindhora, Pargana Kolasla, District Varanasi. The petitioners were purchasers of various parcels of land through sale deeds executed by members of a family descending from one Brij Mohan.
During consolidation proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, objections were raised by Adya Shankar, Kripa Shankar and Radhe Mohan claiming that the lands were ancestral properties and that they possessed birth rights in the properties because they were born prior to the date of vesting. They alleged that the sale deeds executed by their father Ram Nath and by their mother Chamela Devi were illegal insofar as they affected their shares as minors.
The vendees, however, contended that the lands were self-acquired and that all sale deeds were validly executed.
The Consolidation Officer initially accepted the objections and held that Chamela Devi had no right to sell the shares belonging to her minor sons Adya Shankar and Kripa Shankar. It was also held that Ram Nath and Vishwanath had sold land beyond their lawful shares. Accordingly, the officer redistributed shares among the parties.
However, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation later reversed the findings in favour of the vendees. The appellate authority observed that after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, the landholders had become bhumidhars and were competent to execute sale deeds. It further held that the mother had acted as guardian of the minors and the transactions were for their welfare. The authority also noted that Adya Shankar and Kripa Shankar did not institute proceedings for cancellation of the sale deeds within limitation after attaining majority.
Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the earlier view and held that the land continued to retain ancestral character. The revisional authority concluded that the sons had equal shares with their father because they were born before vesting. It further held that neither the father nor the mother could transfer the minors’ shares without legal necessity and without permission from a competent court.
Before the High Court, the purchasers argued that Chamela Devi had sold the lands only for repayment of debts and for family welfare, and that the sons failed to challenge the transactions within the prescribed period after becoming majors.
The Court examined the historical revenue entries and upheld the finding that the disputed lands retained ancestral character. The Court accepted the conclusion of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the shares devolved through inheritance and not in any individual capacity.
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in K.S. Shivappa vs. Smt. K. Neelamma (2025), wherein it was held that a voidable transaction executed by a guardian can be repudiated by the minor after attaining majority either through a suit or through unequivocal conduct.
Applying the principle, the Court observed that Adya Shankar became major in 1962 while Kripa Shankar attained majority in 1965, yet neither of them effectively challenged the sale deeds for several years. The Court also noted that a civil suit instituted in 1970 had already been dismissed.
The Court held that the minors failed to repudiate the transactions either legally or through conduct after attaining majority and therefore lost their rights over the land sold by their mother.
The High Court set aside the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and directed the Consolidation Officer to redistribute shares in accordance with the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Sarju and others Versus DDC
Citation: JURISHOUR-1118-HC-2026(ALL)
Case No.: WRIT – B No. – 6873 of 1979
Date: 23/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Anil Kumar Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sushma Devi
Counsel For Respondent: Manish Kumar Srivastava, S.C.
