Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)
E. Venkatakrishna Reddy And Ors. vs Minor Amarababu And Ors. on 18 December, 1970 cites

N.B. Sitarama Rao vs Venkatarama Reddiar And Ors. on 8 September, 1955

26. The point was again considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sitarama v. Venkatarama (1956) 1 M.L.J. 5 : I.L.R. (1956) Mad. 99. In that case two Hindu brothers of whom one was minor and the other acting for him, though not his legal guardian, purchased properties on 29th November, 1933, agreeing to reconvey the same to the vendors after attainment of majority by the minor. On a suit filed to enforce the agreement for reconveyance against both the brothers the minor who had attained majority pleaded that the reconveyance agreement would not bind him as his brother was neither his de jure guardian nor the manager of the joint family, that the agreement imposed an onerous obligation on him, and that for want of mutuality it was not enforceable against him. The Full Bench by a majority held that contracts entered into on behalf of a minor by his guardian or manager of his estate can be specifically enforced against the minor if the contract is one which is within the competence of the guardian or manager who had entered into it on behalf of the minor so as to bind him by it and if it is also for the benefit of the minor.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Radha Rukmani Ammal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 24 August, 1956

With respect, we are not, however, inclined to take that extreme view. As already said,, even a natural guardian cannot deal with the undivided interest of a minor coparcener except when such natural guardian is the kartha of the manager of the joint family. This is the view taken by this Court in Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1950) 1 M.L.J. 399.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next