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

1970 Supreme(Mad) 215

B.S.SOMASUNDARAM
Narasimham Naidu – Appellant
Versus
S. Ayilu Naidu – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Gopalachari, R. Padmanabhan and K. Sampath, for Appellants.
S. Sitarama Ayyar and S. Rajarama Ayyar, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT.-

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a sale deed executed by the natural guardian of minors, without the previous permission of the Court, is void. Sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, (XXXII of 1956), states that 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, or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. The contention of the appellant that the sale deed, Exhibit A-1, is void, is based on this provision. Sub-section (3) of section 8 renders such a transaction only voidable and not void ab initio. This rule under sub-section (2) is enacted for the benefit and protection of the minor, and any transaction cannot be void, because in such a case the minor may lose the benefit of the same even if it is to his advantage. Sub-section (3) renders it only voidable at his instance. He may repudiate it or adopt it, if he chooses



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