So, there’s this judgment from the Supreme Court in Neelam Gupta and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019) that answers some important legal questions including the difference between permissive and adverse possession, as well as whether a minor can own immovable property. This case helps clear up some common misunderstandings about property law and whether minors have the legal right to be involved in property transactions
As I went through the judgment, it became clear that the apex court highlighted some important parts of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which are key to understanding this issue
- Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section says you cannot transfer property to someone who is legally disqualified from receiving it as a transferee. But interestingly, it does not mention that a minor is disqualified from being a transferee. This means minors can receive immovable property!
- Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section states that only persons competent to enter into contracts can transfer property. While it stops minors from being the ones selling property, it doesn’t stop them from being the ones receiving it.
- Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: This section makes it clear that minors are not considered competent to enter into contracts. However, this limitation does not prevent them from receiving property if the transfer is executed with the minor’s best interests in mind and through appropriate legal channels.
- Indian Majority Act, 1875: This Act defines the age of majority as 18 years. So, until a minor reaches this age, they can’t enter into contracts but can still be beneficiaries in property transactions.
The apex court acknowledged the distinction between a contract and a sale of immovable property. An agreement to sell is a contract. A sale, as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price. The Court concluded that a minor, though not competent to enter into contracts, is legally permitted to be a transferee in immovable property transactions. So, minors can indeed receive immovable property as long as the transfer is done legally.
This ruling is a game-changer for property law!
[Stay tuned for more such updates…]
Comments
Post a Comment