SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1261

NANGALIAMMA BHAVANIAMMA – Appellant
Versus
GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR – Respondent


( 1 ) THE issue which arises for determination in these appeals is whether a sale entered into by the natural guardian of a minor without obtaining the prior permission of the court under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") was void or voidable. Depending upon the answer to this issue, a further question needs resolution, namely, if it is voidable at the instance of the minor, what is the period of limitation within which the minor must file a suit impugning the sale?

( 2 ) THE property in question was originally owned by one Karthiayani (referred to as k hereunder ). K was allotted the property under a deed of partition of joint family properties, which included the property in dispute. In 1958, K mortgaged the property to one Nangali Amma (referred to as n ). In 1959, K died leaving behind her, her husband, Raghavan Nair, and her son and daughter, namely, Gopalakrishnan and Chandramati, respectively. Her children were minors at the time of Ks death. One year after Ks death Raghavan as natural guardian of the two children, sold the equity of redemption in respect to the suit property, to Ns daughter, Bhavani.

( 3 ) THESE facts are no












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top