1. One Ninge Gowda was the original owner of the property in question.

When he passed away, he left behind two daughters, Smt. Sakamma and
Smt. Madamma.
2. Smt. Sakamma was a minor at the time of her father's death. Her sister,
Smt. Madamma, purportedly acted as her guardian.
3. Smt. Madamma, acting as the guardian of her minor sister Smt. Sakamma,
sold Smt. Sakamma's share of the property to Madhegowda through a
registered Sale Deed dated 24.4.1961.
4. The appellant (Madhegowda) claimed that Smt. Sakamma's share of the
property was sold to raise funds for her marriage. He took possession of
the property and continued to possess it.
5. Smt. Sakamma attained majority sometime in 1961-62 and sold her share
of the property to Ankegowda by a registered Sale Deed dated 1.7.1967.
6. A dispute arose over possession of the property, leading to a legal
proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In the Section 145 proceeding, the magistrate determined that the
appellant (Madhegowda) was in possession of the property and would
continue to remain in possession unless dispossessed by a competent
court.
8. Ankegowda, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of title,
partition of Smt. Sakamma's share, and delivery of possession. The trial
court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that Smt.
Sakamma had no valid title to the property on the date she executed the
sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.
9. The High Court of Karnataka allowed the second appeal filed by
respondent nos. 1 to 9, setting aside the lower court's judgment and
decree. The High Court held that the respondents were entitled to a half-
share in the property and ordered partition and delivery of possession.
10. The main legal question in the case revolved around the competence
of Smt. Madamma to sell the interest of her minor sister, Smt. Sakamma,
in the property as her guardian. The outcome of the case depended on
the interpretation of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956, and its interaction with other provisions of the Act.

ISSUE RAISED
Whether the elder sister is competent to alienate the interest of the minor sister in
property, acting as her guardian?
Does the application of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
prohibit de facto guardians or managers from dealing with a Hindu minor's property?
Should the alienation of the minor's property by a de facto guardian (Smt. Madamma) be
considered void or voidable, and what are the consequences of such an alienation?
 Contentions of the parties

Appellant (Madhegowda):

1. Madhegowda, the appellant, claimed that Smt. Sakamma's share of

the property was sold to him to raise funds for her marriage, and he
had a valid title to the property.
2. He argued that he had been in possession of the property since the
sale in 1961 and should continue to retain possession.

Plaintiff (Ankegowda):

1. Ankegowda, the plaintiff, contended that Smt. Sakamma, upon

attaining majority, sold her share of the property to him in 1967 and
that he had a valid claim to the property.
2. He sought a declaration of title, partition of Smt. Sakamma's share,
and delivery of possession of that share to him.

Defendants (Smt. Sakamma, Smt. Madamma, S.Madhegowda):

1. Smt. Sakamma, the minor, is presumably one of the defendants. Her

contention might be related to her awareness of the property
transaction and her consent or lack thereof.
2. Smt. Madamma, the sister of Smt. Sakamma, who acted as the
guardian, might contend that she had the authority to sell Smt.
Sakamma's share on her behalf.
3. S.Madhegowda, the appellant, is also a defendant. His contention
might include arguments about the validity of the sale deed, the
nature of his possession, and the legitimacy of his title to the
property.

JUDGEMENT
The courts held that Smt. Sakamma could not have validly sold the property to Ankegowda without
getting the sale deed to Madhegowda annulled by filing a suit within three years of attaining
majority.

1. 1… The court determined that Smt. Madamma, who purportedly acted as the
guardian for her minor sister, Smt. Sakamma, did not have the legal competence to
sell Sakamma's share in the property. The court relied on Section 11 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which explicitly prohibited any person from
disposing of or dealing with the property of a Hindu minor on the grounds of being a
de facto guardian.
2. In summary, the judgment passed on this critical issue was that Smt. Madamma did
not have the legal competence to sell her minor sister's share in the property, and the
sale was declared void under Section 11 of the Act

2….. the application of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship

Act, 1956, prohibits de facto guardians or managers from dealing with a
Hindu minor's property. The judgment passed in the case mentioned in
your previous messages made it clear that Section 11 of the Act expressly
prohibits any person, including de facto guardians or managers, from
disposing of or dealing with the property of a Hindu minor.

The court held that the use of the term "de facto guardian" is a loose
phraseology, and there is nothing like a de facto guardian in law. Rather, a
person who manages a minor's estate without legal title can be
appropriately described as a de facto manager. The court emphasized that
Section 11 of the Act applies to all types of properties of a Hindu minor,
and it does not make any exceptions.

As a result, any transfer made by a de facto guardian or manager in

violation of the express prohibition under Section 11 is considered invalid
and void ab initio. The minor, upon attaining majority, has the right to
repudiate such transfers, and no legal necessity or ratification can cure the
invalidity of the transfer.

In summary, the judgment passed in the case reaffirmed that Section 11 of

the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, prohibits de facto
guardians or managers from dealing with a Hindu minor's property, and
any such transactions are deemed void.

3……