Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.53 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 110 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001
25.But, as mentioned above, there is an
authoritative pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Madhukar vishwanth Vs. Madhao and others
[2002(4) CTC 49]. Probably the judgment cited by the
respondent might have been the older view. The judgment
cited by the respondent in Dhanasekar Vs.
Manoranjithammal and another (AIR 1992 Mad.214) was
referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in Madhegowda (D) by Lrs Vs. Ankegowda (D) by
Lrs& others (2002(4) CTC 51 in para 22. After taking
into account, all those earlier judgements, the judgment
of the Privacy Council before the introduction of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 regarding the
legal character of de-facto guardian, concluded the
position in para 22 and 23, which read as follows:-
Rajalakshmi And Ors. vs Minor Ramachandran And Anr. on 11 March, 1966
He is
referring to the judgment of this court reported in
11/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 12:43:25 pm )
SA(MD)No.685 of 2011
Rajalakshmi and others Vs. Minor Ramachandran and another
(AIR 1967 MAD 118).
Dhanasekaran vs Manoranjithammal And Others on 6 September, 1991
23.We have carefully considered
the principles laid down in the
aforementioned decisions so far as
relevant for the purpose of
adjudication of the issue arising in
the present case. It is to be kept in
mind that this is not a case of
alienation of minors interest in a
joint family property. As noted
13/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 12:43:25 pm )