Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)
Sri Basawanthraya @ Basayya vs Sri Venkob Rao on 7 February, 2012 cites

Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 17 February, 1999

19. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants contended that though the father is a natural guardian of a Hindu minor child. in the absence of father or father not taking care of the family and the minors, the mother can act as a natural guardian as held by the Apex Court in the case of Geetha Hariharan & another Vs. Reserve Bank of India reported In 1999 (2) SCC 228 and therefore. the finding recorded by the trial Court that the alienation made by the father and mother during the lifetime of the father is void, is ex fade ifiegal. Secondly he contended that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there was no partition In the Joint family. the schedule properties were all Joint family properties and ancestral properties. Merely because, mutation entries were made In the name of the minor-plaIntiffs. it did not become their exclusive and separate property. It continued to be the property of the Joint family. In order to alienate the Joint family property by the Karta of the family or guardian of the minors. no permission of the Court is required under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956. This aspect has S 27 not been property appreciated by the trial Court and thus It committed ifiegality. Thirdly, he contended that plaintiffS themselves have produced the records of the Bank to show that on the very next day of the sale, fixed deposits have been made In the names of the both minors as well as the mother, which clearly shows that consideration paid by these defendants have been deposited In the Bank for the benefit of the minor children. Therefore, aU that Is expected by a purchaser of the minor's property Is to ensure that the money which they have paid goes and utilized for the benefit of the minors, which burden they have discharged from the admitted evidence on record. If the father or mother of the minors raised loan on that deposit and they have not repaid the loan and the said fixed deposit Is appropriated towards discharge of loan, the purchasers cannot be held responsible in any manner. Lastly It was contended that though the plaintiff has averred that the sale deed was executed by her because of the fraud, misrepresentation. coercive and undue influence practiced In' the her husband, firstly, no evidence is adduced to substantiate the said 28 contention. Secondly, as long as the defendants have not played any fraud or practiced misrepresentation or coercion, the sale is not vitiated. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the controversy between the parties and not taken note of the law governing the point, It misdirected itself and committed serious error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. Therefore. he submits that a case for interference is made out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 142 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1