Bombay High Court quashes case by son against parents for alienating properties gifted to him when he was minor

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the parents of a man for selling part of the properties gifted to him while he was a minor [Vasantkumar Khandelwal vs State of Maharashtra]..A bench of Justices Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar reiterated that any transaction regarding alienation of an immovable property by a natural guardian of a minor is valid until it is struck down by a competent court.The High Court relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court which had opined that in such a situation, the agreement signed between the natural guardian and the third party, is to be construed as the one signed by the minor himself and thus the transaction isn't null and void.The bench was dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by Vasantkumar Khandelwal, his wife Shardadevi and daughter Archana Gupta, all challenging the FIR filed against them by their son/brother Alok.According to the prosecution case, one Arvindkumar Khandelwal had gifted a property to Alok when he was three years old. The total 17 acres and 28 gunthas land parcel was executed in Alok's favour through his natural guardian - Vasantkumar.In his FIR, Alok stated that he learnt in February 2020 about the fact that his father has sold some part of his gifted property in December 2018. He claimed that upon enquiry he learnt that his father has been using the said property for his personal use without obtaining permission from the Court.Alok further alleged his own father of having established one Anupam Co-operative Housing Society on May 20, 1978 with help of his friends to grab the minor's property as it was done without the consent of the court and even went to transfer the property to the society. He further pointed out that his father then again purchased part of the said plot in 1973 from the said society to claim ownership on the same.Accordingly, Alok argued that his father cheated him and even committed a criminal breach of his trust. He further claimed that his father prepared false documents and executed a registered will-deed in October 2019, claiming that he owns the entire property.As far as his sister and mother are concerned, Alok claimed that his father transferred some part of the total property in their favour..The bench noted that it was seized of the matter only to the extent of deciding whether or not to quash the FIR and that it wasn't called upon to decide the validity of the sale deeds entered upon Vasantkumar, while acting as a natural guardian of his then minor son.However, for effective adjudication of the said issue, the Court said that it is necessary to consider the powers of natural guardian to alienate a minor's property and the consequences of such alienation after coming into force of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.After examining the Act, the Court said that the provisions in the Act renders alienation of the immovable property by a natural guardian is voidable at the instance of a minor if it is without permission of the Court. "The legislature has advisedly used this terminology and cannot be ascribed ignorance of the sharp legal distinction between a transfer, that is, void and one that is merely voidable at the instance of one of the parties," the Court noted. The judges noted that it is a well-settled principle of law that transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian of a Hindu minor far from being void or being a nullity is, in fact, one which fully binds the other party unless set aside by a competent court."The minor can always enjoy the benefit thereof and enforce the contract after ratifying or accepting the same. Such a transaction is perfectly valid until duly avoided by the minor before a competent Court. It must be remembered that in the eyes of the law, the transfer is by the minor as the principal through the agency of his guardian. The minor in such a transfer is eo nomine a party to the said transfer. Once a person is eo nomine a party to a transaction that is merely voidable, then he cannot be conveniently ignored such transaction," the bench said. Further with regard to the offences invoked against Alok's family in his FIR, the bench said the same doesn't include the core ingredients needed to constitute an offence. "On an overall consideration of the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the FIR was filed against the family members to apply pressure on them and to cause harassment to them. It has been a settled law that the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be used for settling, coercing or causing harassment to the accused persons," the judges said while quashing the FIR..[Read Judgment]