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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 131

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Sivanmalai Goundan – Appellant
Versus
Arunachala Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit has been brought by the assignee of a mortgage bond. The assignment was made by the guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards, Act of the minor who became entitled to the mortgage. The question raised in the appeal is whether the assignment is void or voidable. Section 29 of the Act, which imposes a limitation on the powers of a guardian of the property, enacts inter alia that he shall not transfer any immovable property of his ward without the previous sanction of the Court. Then Section 30 goes on to say that a disposal by the guardian in contravention of this provision is voidable " at the instance of any other person affected thereby ". This section renders the transaction voidable and not void ab initio. Does "the fact that the statutory prohibition has been incorporated in the order appointing the guardian, clothe the prohibition with a quality which it does not otherwise possess? In other words, is the lower appellate Court right in holding that though the statute says that the transaction shall be voidable, it is nevertheless void as what has been infringed is the prohibition specially imposed by the order? The order must be ta



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