Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down that the mortgage deed which was entered into when the mortgagee was minor is void ab initio as minor is not a valid contracting party. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge Bench consisting of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.   

Facts   

• The appellant filed Application before the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming to be a deemed tenant under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (K.L.R. Act). 
• The claim was based on a mortgage deed executed in 1909–1910 in favor of the appellant’s mother, Smt. Aley, as collateral security for a dowry amount of 7000 Chakram. 
• The appellant contended that his mother was in continuous possession of the land for over 50 years before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and hence, the appellant should be treated as a deemed tenant. 
• The Land Tribunal, in its order dated 21st March 1994, held the appellant to be a deemed tenant and eligible to receive a purchase certificate under Section 72B of the K.L.R. Act. 
• The first respondent, along with others, appealed the order. The Appellate Authority upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal on 09th April 1997. 
• The first respondent then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court of Kerala, which set aside the findings of both the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority and rejected the appellant’s claim. 
• The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, alleging error in law and overreach of revisional jurisdiction. 

Issues Involved

• Whether  the mortgage deed dated 1909-1910 is a valid mortgage deed and even if it is so, whether it is a simple or usufructuary mortgage in terms of Sections 58(b) and 58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA)? 
• Whether the concurrent finding of the Appellate Authority in its judgment passed is based on legal evidence on record and in accordance with law? 
• Whether the finding recorded in the impugned judgment by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with regard to possession of the property holding that the appellant is not in possession under the document Exh. A1-mortgage deed, and therefore, he is not the deemed tenant of the land in question under Section 4A of the K.L.R. Act, is legal and valid? 

Observations 

• Mortgage Deed Invalid Due to Minority:  
  • The mortgage deed (Exh. A1) was held void ab initio as the mortgagee (appellant's mother) was a minor (15 years old) at the time of execution and registration, and she was not represented by a natural or legal guardian.  
  • As per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a minor is not competent to contract. 
• Minor Cannot Be a Valid Contracting Party: 
  • Relying on the precedent set in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Court reaffirmed that a minor cannot enter into a valid contract, including a mortgage transaction. 
• Simple Mortgage with No Right to Possession:  
  • The mortgage deed did not contain any recital granting possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee. 
  • It was a simple mortgage, and possession was never legally transferred. 
• Lack of Documentary Evidence of Possession:  
  • The appellant failed to produce revenue records or any other documentary evidence to establish that the deceased mortgagee (his mother) was in possession of the property or that he succeeded her possession lawfully. 
• Appellant’s Possession Not Legally Justified:  
  • Even assuming the appellant was in possession, there was no legal basis under the mortgage deed or succession to support the claim that such possession was that of a mortgagee. 
• Error by Lower Authorities: 
  • The Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority erred in law by accepting oral testimonies and not considering the legal defects in the mortgage deed. 
  • Their findings in favor of the appellant were based on flawed appreciation of evidence. 
• No Valid Claim as Deemed Tenant:  
  • The appellant’s claim of being a “deemed tenant” under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms (K.L.R.) Act was rejected due to the invalidity of the mortgage deed and lack of possession rooted in legal entitlement. 
• Failure to Implead Mortgagor or Heirs: 
  • The mortgagor or his legal heirs were not made parties in the proceedings, and there was no clarity on whether the dowry-related mortgage obligation had been discharged. 
• Ownership Not Decided:  
  • The Court did not adjudicate on ownership rights due to lack of evidence and proper parties.  
  • The parties were granted liberty to litigate the issue of ownership before the appropriate authority. 
• Appeal Dismissed:  
  • The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, declared the findings of the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority as legally erroneous, and dismissed the civil appeal filed by the appellant.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court held that a mortgage deed executed in favor of a minor without proper guardianship is void ab initio. 
• Consequently, the appellant's claim as a deemed tenant under the K.L.R. Act was rightly rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.