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

1971 Supreme(Bom) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
J.R.Vimadalal, J.
Appellants: Shivamurti
Vs.
Respondent: Vijaysing Vinayakrao Dudhe
A.F.O.D. No. 624 of 1970
Decided On: 27.01.1971
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Raghavendra A. Jahagirdar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.N. Gadgil, Adv.

Only the natural guardian of a Hindu minor can apply for permission to transfer immovable property under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Headnote:

HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 - SECTION 8 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - MAINTAINABILITY - ONLY NATURAL GUARDIAN CAN APPLY - INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN AND THE TENOR OF THE ENACTMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an intending purchaser, filed an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in the Court of the District Judge at Satara against the respondent, a minor represented by his mother, for permission for the execution of a registered Sale Deed in favor of the appellant on payment of the remaining amount of the price.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the application which he made to the District Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the same was rightly dismissed by that court.

Issues: Whether any person other than the guardian can maintain an application for permission for the transfer of immovable property under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, or under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and held that the permission contemplated by sub-section (2) must be applied for by the natural guardian himself. The court also held that sub-section (4) requires that it must be proved that there was in fact necessity for or advantage to the minor concerned, no person other than the natural guardian could be expected to prove the same as an applicant under that section.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT - 1.The respondent is a minor represented by his mother as his guardian ad litem. Some time in the year 1957, there was a partition as between the members of the joint family of which he was a member till then, in which the land in dispute in the present proceedings came to the share of the respondent. It appears that thereafter it was the mother of the respondent who acted as the natural guardian in respect of his property. On the 7th of February 1962, an agreement for Sale of the land now in dispute was executed in favour of the appellant by the respondents father as the constituted attorney of the respondents mother acting as the natural guardian of the respondent for the price of Rs. 6000/-. A fresh agreement for Sale of the said land for a higher price was thereafter executed on 17th July 1962 by the respondents father, as such constituted attorney, under which it was stipulated that a Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 11th December 1962. Payments aggregating in all to Rs. 4250/- were made by the appellant from time to time towards the price payable in respect of said land. The respondents father as constituted

2. attorney having failed to execute a Sale Deed, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance on 10th December 1965, being Reg. Civil Suit No. 8 of 1966, in the Court at Wai against the respondent as represented by his father as the guardian - ad - litem. The said court did not grant specific performance, but passed only a decree for refund of the said sum of Rs. 4250/- in favour of the appellant. That decree was, however, set aside on appeal on 9th March 1968 by the Assistant Judge at Satara who remanded the suit to the trial court for rehearing, directing that that the mother of the respondent should be appointed his guardina - ad - litem for the said suit, and not his father. On the 25th of March 1969, the appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in the Court of the District Judge at Satara against the respondent, as represented by his mother, for permission for the execution of a registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellant on payment of the remaining amount of the price viz. Rs. 1750/- by the parents of the respondent as constituted attorneys, or by the Court on his behalf. That application was opposed by the respondent both on the ground that, under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the appellant had no right to make such an application, as well as on merits. A preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of the application was framed and tried by the Assistant Judge at Satara who, by his judgment dated 30th June 1970, held that under the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it was for the natural guardian alone to make such an application. He, therefore, dismissed the application, and it is from that Order of dismissal that the present appeal has been preferred by the intending purchaser (original applicant).

2. The material portion of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is in the following terms :-

"8. (1) Powers of natural guardian - The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section to do all the acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minors estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal convenant.

(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court :-

(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immoveable property of the minor; ...........................

(4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub - section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.

(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, shall apply to and in respect of an appl











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top