Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.48 seconds)
A.R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar vs T.N. Somasundara Nadar (Died) And Ors. on 9 July, 2003 cites

Arunachela Reddi And Anr. vs Chidambara Reddi on 29 October, 1902

" Therefore the question is whether even where there is a father for the minors alive, the mother can acting as de facto guardian of the minors, alienate their property for necessity. Authorities seem to favour the view that she can. The earliest case is the one reported in Arunachala Reddi v. Chidambara Reddi (1902) 13 MLJ 223). In that case there was a testamentary guardian appointed for the minor. But the minor's mother alienated the minor's property. It was held that the alienation of minor's estate made by the natural and de facto guardian will be valid if for necessity, notwithstanding that there was a testamentary guardian in existence (especially where such testamentary guardian had acquiesced in the alienation). In this case also the father has attested the mortgage deed and the management of the property having all along been with the mother, the father should also be deemed to have acquiesced in the mortgage.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

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

We are of the view that the above decisions are distinguishable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in GITHA HARIHARAN v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA where the Supreme Court held that mother can act as natural guardian as both the parents are bound to take care of the person and property of the minor and where the father is not in actual charge of the affairs of the minor either because of his indifference or because of an agreement between him and the mother of the minor and the minor is in the exclusive care and custody of the mother or the father for any other reason is unable to take care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid even during the lifetime of the father.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 142 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Govind Das Purushotham Das And Another vs Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., Madras And 4 ... on 27 April, 2000

22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale of the joint family property by the mother is invalid as permission of the Court was not obtained prior to the sale of the property. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PANNI LAL v. RAJINDER SINGH & ANOTHER (1994-1-L.W.40) and the decisions of this Court in DHANASEKARAN v. MANORANJITHAMMAL and GOVIND DAS PURUSHOTHAM DAS v. SHAW WALLACE & CO.,LTD. (2001 (1) CTC 601) (in which one of us was a party). We find from the plaint that the plaintiff has not raised any such contention that prior permission of the Court was not obtained for the sale of the property, nor there is any evidence on this aspect. It was also not brought to the notice of the trial Court that the prior permission of the Court was not obtained for the sale of the property. The contention raised that the sale deed is void as prior permission of the Court was not obtained is liable to be rejected on this short ground as the plaintiff has not raised the point in the plaint. We however find that the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that it is an admitted case that no prior permission of the Court was obtained before the sale of the property. Even assuming that the plaintiff is entitled to raise the point, we find that the deed of sale was executed on 11.6.1956 and during the relevant period, the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 would apply. The expression, 'guardian' is defined in section 4(2) of the said Act to mean a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of both his person and property. Section 27 of the said Act provides that it is the duty of the guardian of the property of a minor to deal with the property as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with it if it were his own and the guardian is empowered to do all reasonable acts which are proper for the realisation, protection or benefit of the property. Section 28 deals with the powers of testamentary guardian and we are not concerned with the same. Section 29 deals with the limitation of powers of guardian of property appointed or declared by the Court and the section reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next