Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Narasimham Naidu And Anr. vs S. Ayilu Naidu And Ors. on 10 July, 1970

P.T. Chathu Chettiar vs Kariat Kunnummal Kanaran on 31 May, 1983

9. Once the obligation to institute a suit to set aside the transfer is not there, the decree can be executed by the minor and so, in the present case, the view taken by the courts below that the execution proceedings cannot be instituted by the minor without first getting the sale set aside is untenable." I should at once indicate that a different note has been struck by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Narasimham Naidu v. S. Ayilu Naidu (1971-1 Mad LJ 228 (1)). Therein the learned Judge has held that the sale deed executed by a natural guardian without the previous permission of the court "is voidable and not void".
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Nallathambi Kounder vs Gopalakrishan Kounder And Ors. on 17 January, 1991

12. So far as the other Appeal No. 502 of 1980, arising out of O.S. No. 178 of 1978, the alienations are, as stated above, by the father of the plaintiff, as guardian of the plaintiff and so, Section 8(2) and (3) of the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act, 1956 are attracted. Section 8(2) says that a natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, alienate the property of the minor. Section 8(3) says that any disposal of any immoveable property by the natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(2), is viodable at the instance of the minor. This Court in the case Narasimha Naidu v. Ayilu Haldu, (1971) 1 M.L.J. 228, has also held that the absence of the necessary permission of the Court for an alienation by the guardian does not make the alienation absolutely void, but makes it only voidable at the instance of the minor. In the present case, admittedly the previous permission from the Court as contemplated Under Section 8(2) has not been obtained. So the plaintiff can avoid the transaction. In this contex, the Trial Court has erred in stating that in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to prove that the transaction is tainted with immoral or illegal purposes or that it must be shown that there is no family necessity. The Trial Court has so erred because no such proof by the plaintiff is necessary under the above said Act. The Trial Court in this regard has confused the alienation by a guardian with the alienation by the kartha of a Hindu family. Therefore, the mere fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 178 of 1978 shows that he wants to avoid the alienation. He could avoid the alienations in this regard by any act or conduct on his part showing his intention to avoid them.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1