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

1956 Supreme(Mad) 33

RAMASWAMI GOUNDER, GOVINDA MENON
S. R. K. Ramaswami – Appellant
Versus
Komaravelu Goundan – Respondent


Advocates:
D. Ramaswami Ayyangar and P.R. Varadarajan for Appellants.
R. Ramamurthi Ayyar for Respondent.

Govinda Menon, J.- There is nothing in Hindu Law, either on principle or on authority, prohibiting a father, at the time of a family partition from taking cash instead of landed property for his own and his minor children’s share. Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar argues that partition necessarily connotes a division of property and therefore each member is entitled to have an aliquot share of the property separated and given to him. In case where a member is sui juris and can contract for himself, it is on his own volition that he gives up the right to property and takes money, but in the case of a minor, the father cannot give up the son’s rights in exchange for money. But in our opinion when the father acting on behalf of his minor son bona fide enters into a transaction by which in lieu of immoveable property he takes cash, there is nothing to be said against such an act. On the other hand, the taking of cash with the object of dissipating it and depriving the minor of the wherewithal would amount to fraud and such a partition can later on be questioned by the minor as a fraudulent transaction. In the case before us there is nothing proved to show that instead of the one-sixth share in

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