Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has said in an important decision that if a child’s property is sold by his parents or guardian when he is a minor, then the child can cancel the deal after he turns 18, and there is no need to file a case in the court for this. The court said that such a person can prove that he does not agree to the old deal only by taking clear and concrete steps. Like he himself resells that property or transfers it to someone else.
Karnataka’s case became an example
This decision was taken in KS Shivappa vs Smt. K. Neelamma came into the case. The case was related to two plots in Shamanur village of Karnataka. In 1971, a person named Rudrappa had purchased these plots in the name of his three minor sons, but later he sold them without the permission of the court. Many years later, when the sons became adults, they sold the same land to KS Shivappa. On this, first the buyers expressed their rights and the dispute started.
Important comment of Supreme Court
There were differing opinions in lower courts on whether the children were required to file a lawsuit to void the earlier deal. The Supreme Court clearly said that it is not necessary to file a case in every case. If the person shows by his behavior that he does not agree to the old deal, such as selling the property himself, then that is also sufficient.
Justice Mithal said in the judgment, if a parent has made a deal on behalf of a minor, then after the child attains majority, he can reject that deal either by challenging it in the court or by his clear behavior.
reasoning behind the decision
The court also acknowledged that many times children are not even aware that their property has already been sold, or that they are still living in the same property. In such cases, it is not necessary to file a lawsuit, and they can directly take steps to assert their rights.
Delhi High Court also gave an important decision
In another family property dispute, the Delhi High Court said that a wife has the right to live in her in-laws’ house, even if her husband has been evicted by his parents. Justice Sanjeev Narula said that after marriage, when a wife starts living in her husband’s house, that house will be considered as a shared household. Therefore it cannot be removed from there.
This case was related to a 2010 marriage, in which the husband later left the house and said that he had been separated from the family. The mother-in-law and father-in-law tried to throw the daughter-in-law out of the house, saying that the house was the property of the deceased father. But both the trial court and the High Court said that the daughter-in-law cannot be evicted merely on the basis of the husband’s eviction. The court ruled that the mother-in-law would live on the upper floor and the daughter-in-law could continue to live on the lower floor. So that the rights of both the parties remain balanced.