Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.96 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Shri Krishan vs The Kurukshetra University, ... on 17 November, 1975
The proof regarding alleged fraud must be of such degree that a prudent man could believe it. In Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kuruksheta , the Apex Court observed:
Narayan Laxman Gilankar vs Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik And Others on 30 September, 1993
In Narayan Laxman Gilankar v. Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik , this Court held that the interest of minor in the joint family property is kept outside the reach of the provision of Sections 6 and 12 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, leaving it to the natural guardian to deal with it in accordance with customary Hindu Law. The undisputed fact situation in the given case was that the property was the joint family property owned by widow mother and her two children. The mother was the natural guardian. The property was not divided by metes and bounds and minors had only undivided and unspecified shares in the same. This Court observed:
Sunamani Dei vs Babaji Das And Ors. on 25 February, 1974
In Sunamani Dei v. Babaji Das and Ors. , it is held that natural guardian can alienate even the minors' share under the personal law. The mother as a guardian can alienate undivided share of minor and permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is not the requirement of law.
Sri Narayan Bal And Others vs Sri Sridhar Sutar And Others on 29 January, 1996
In Sri. Narayan Bal and Ors. v. Sri Sridhar Sutar and Ors. 1996 (1) Supreme 638, the Apex Court held that the natural guardian of minor has power to alienate undivided interest of the minor in the joint Hindu family property and the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are not applicable to such transaction in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12 of the said Act. So also, in "Re Krishnakant Maganlal" (), it is held that Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, does not affect the power of manager or karta to alienate the undivided share of the minor. It is held that application under Section 8 for permission to alienate undivided share of the minor by the manager of guardian of the minor is not maintainable.
Gangoji Rao And Anr. vs H.K. Channappa And Ors. on 9 December, 1982
The Karnataka High Court in Gangoji Rao and Anr. v. H.K. Channappa and Ors. , held that the mother is not a de facto guardian in the sense used in Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and can alienate the property for family necessity or in the interest of the family. It is held that in absence of the father, the mother can act as manager of the joint family property, including the interest of the minors in such property, and is therefore, empowered to alienate the property for family necessity.
Amirtham Kudumbah vs Sarnam Kumdumban on 16 April, 1991
He also relied on Amirtham Kadumbah v. Sarnam Kudumban AIR 1991 SC 1256. The Apex Court held that when the property of the minor was sold by his father, as his natural guardian, to a person without the permission of the Court as required by Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and that the sale was not for legal necessity, the minor can file the suit to set aside the sale within three years after attaining the majority. With due respect, this authority also is of no assistance to the plaintiffs' herein. The permission under Section 8 is necessary only when the property is separate property of the minor. In such a case the minor can challenge the sale transaction within three years of attaining majority. In the present case, as on the date of the suit, the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were minors and the property was not separate/individual property of either of them. As stated earlier, the plaintiff No. 1 herself being alienator, could not have impeached the transaction on any other ground except that of fraud, coercion or undue influence, if any, and that too after giving all particulars in the plaint and furnishing necessary degree of proof in support of such plea.