The Supreme Court held that expecting a minor to respond to a public notice about a court case is “wholly erroneous and perverse.” The Court set aside an ex-parte succession certificate granted without informing or appointing a guardian for the minor heir.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made an important observation regarding the rights of minors in legal proceedings and said that expecting a minor to respond to a public notice about a court case is “wholly erroneous and perverse.”
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih cancelled an ex-parte succession certificate that had been granted earlier without informing a minor legal heir. The Court clearly stated that a minor cannot be expected to take legal action based only on a public notice published in a newspaper or elsewhere, and that the minor must be properly represented in any legal proceedings that affect their rights.
The Supreme Court also criticised the decisions of the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had taken the view that the minor could have seen the public notice and participated in the proceedings. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view and held that such reasoning was legally incorrect and unfair to the minor.
The case started after the death of a man who was working as a lineman with the Madhya Pradesh Central Electricity Distribution Company in 2011. After his death, two of his daughters filed succession proceedings to obtain a succession certificate so that they could receive his retiral benefits. During the proceedings, a public notice was issued, and later the succession certificate was granted in their favour.
However, another legal heir, who was a minor at that time, was not made a party to the case even though the two daughters were aware that he existed and had a legal right in the property and benefits. Because he was a minor, he was also not represented by any guardian in the court proceedings.
After the minor became an adult, he challenged the earlier order of the court and argued that he was never given a chance to be heard and that the entire succession certificate was granted without informing him properly. He argued before the court that he had been denied his legal rights.
The trial court rejected his application and said that since a public notice had already been issued, it was sufficient notice. This decision was later upheld by the appellate court and also by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was argued that a minor cannot be expected to act upon a public notice and that if a minor is involved in a case, the court must ensure that a guardian is appointed to represent the minor. It was argued that failure to appoint a guardian for the minor had affected the fairness of the entire legal proceeding.
The Supreme Court accepted this argument and held that the decisions of the lower courts suffered from serious legal infirmities and that the minor had indeed suffered prejudice because he was not properly represented in the case.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the succession certificate that had been granted earlier, and restored the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to decide the case as quickly as possible, preferably within one year.
The petitioner in the case was represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Jain along with advocates Pratibha Jain, Christi Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Akriti Sharma, Aditya Jain, Siddharth Jain, Yogit Kamat and Ritvik Bharadwaj, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Arvind Gupta.
This judgment is important because it reinforces the legal principle that minors must be properly represented in court proceedings and that merely publishing a public notice cannot be treated as sufficient notice to a minor. The ruling also makes it clear that any order passed without properly informing or representing a minor can be set aside by the court, as it violates principles of natural justice and fairness.
Case Title:
Deepesh Maheswari & Anr. vs. Renu Maheswari & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal
