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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 647

A.ABDUL HADI, VENKATASWAMY
Dhanasekaran – Appellant
Versus
Manoranjithammal and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:M. N. Padmanabhan, V. R. Gopalan, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

What is the applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to the sale of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property? What are the consequences of a de facto guardian (the mother) selling a minor's share in joint family property without prior court permission under Section 8? What is the effect and scope of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 on a minor's undivided interest in joint family property when dealt with by a de facto guardian?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - [21000171570018]

What is the applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to the sale of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property?

What are the consequences of a de facto guardian (the mother) selling a minor's share in joint family property without prior court permission under Section 8?

What is the effect and scope of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 on a minor's undivided interest in joint family property when dealt with by a de facto guardian?


Judgment :-

ABDUL HADI, J.

This appeal has been posted before us on being referred to by Bellie, J., since the view he is taking on the question involved in the appeal is in conflict with the view taken by Ratnam, J., in his decision reported in Pattayi Padayachi v. Subbaraya Padayachi, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 296.

2. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 296 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore praying for setting aside the sale under Ex. B.4 dated 2-8-1961, effected by his mother when he was a minor, in so far is his 3/4th share therein is concerned and for partition and separate possession of the said share. The question to be answered is whether the said sale is hit by S. 8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 since admittedly the plaintiff's mother did not obtain the previous permission from the Court as contemplated in the said Section, and consequently whether the plaintiff could avoid the said sale with reference to his above said 3/4th share. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan is that S. 8 operates and the plaintiff could avoid the sale. On the other hand, the contention of the learned






















































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