Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jalaja Shedthi & Ors vs Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors on 20 September, 1973
In order to lend
support to this submission, Mr. Thakker placed a strong reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jalaja Shedthi and
Others vs. Lakshmi Shedthi and Others 1. In the said case, the
Supreme Court held that on the demand for partition there is a
division in status, and though partition by metes and bounds may
not have taken place, the family can thereafter never be considered
to be an undivided family nor can the interest of a coparcener be
considered to be an undivided interest. Emphasis was laid on the
following observations of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 12, of
the said judgment.
Phoolchand And Anr vs Gopal Lal on 10 March, 1967
19. Reliance was also placed on the another judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Phoolchand and Another vs. Gopal
Lal2. In this case also the Supreme Court emphasized that
immediately on the filing of the suit there was severance of status
among the members of the joint Hindu family. Mr. Thakker invited
the attention of the Court to the averments in the plaint in the Suit
No. 2283 of 2011 to bolster up the submission that the plaintiff and
defendant Nos. 3 and 4 herein had claimed partition and separate
possession of their respective shares in Niraj Jayantilal Mehta and
2 AIR 1967 SC 1470.
Sri Narayan Bal And Others vs Sri Sridhar Sutar And Others on 29 January, 1996
20. A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in sections 6, 8
and12 of the Act, indicates that natural guardian of the property of
Hindu minor is enjoined to seek permission of the Court to dispose
of any immovable property of the minor. However, where the minor
has undivided interest in the joint family property, the previous
permission of the Court under section 8 of the Act for disposing of
the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is
not required. In other words, in view of the provisions contained in
section 6 and 12, the permission envisaged under section 8 of the
Act would not be required where a joint family property is alienated
by Karta involving an undivided interest of minor in the said joint
Hindu family property. A useful reference in this context can be
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri
Narayan Bal & Others vs. Sridhar Sutar & Ors3. The observations in
paragraph 5 are material and hence, extracted below.
Vasantrao Gulabrao Thakre Thr. Lrs Smt. ... vs Sudhakar Wamanrao Hingankar & Ors on 4 May, 2018
In the case of Vasantrao Gulabrao Thakre and Ors. vs.
Sudhakar Wamanrao Hingankar and Ors.4 on which reliance was
placed by Mr. Ardheshir the aforesaid position has been reiterated.
1