“Supreme Court Affirms Minor Can Be a Transferee But Not a Transferor of Immovable Property.”
October 14, 2024 2025-03-01 23:29“Supreme Court Affirms Minor Can Be a Transferee But Not a Transferor of Immovable Property.”
“Supreme Court Affirms Minor Can Be a Transferee But Not a Transferor of Immovable Property.”
By Tanishka Shah
The Supreme Court of India clarified that while a minor can be a transferee of immovable property, they cannot act as a transferor. This ruling arose in the context of a property dispute in the civil appeal Neelam Gupta & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to reverse concurrent judgments dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
The dispute centered around a 1968 sale deed executed when the transferee was a minor. The defendants argued that the property was joint family property and the sale was invalid as the vendor lacked authority to transfer it. Further, the defendants claimed adverse possession over the property, alleging uninterrupted and hostile possession since 1968.
The Trial Court held that the suit land was joint family property and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the finding that the property was joint family property but upheld the dismissal on the grounds of adverse possession. The High Court reversed these findings, recognizing the plaintiff’s title and rejecting the claims of adverse possession.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, reiterating that minors can acquire property but cannot transfer it under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found no evidence to support the defendants’ claim of adverse possession, highlighting their failure to prove hostile intent (“animus possidendi”) or uninterrupted possession for the prescriptive period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court also emphasized that permissive possession, such as lease arrangements, does not mature into adverse possession without clear evidence of a hostile claim. It further observed that the defendants’ own submissions in earlier proceedings contradicted their current claims, confirming that their possession was not adverse to the plaintiff’s title.
The ruling provides clarity on property rights involving minors, adverse possession, and the interpretation of joint family property, ensuring that legal principles are uniformly applied to protect rightful ownership.
Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Citation: 2024 INSC 769
