Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Section 103 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pandurang Babu Parab vs Mahadaji Moreshvar Gokhale on 8 September, 1902
4. The question was thoroughly considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Pandurang Balm Parab v. Mahadaji Moreshvar Gokhale 24 B. 23 : 4 Bom. L.R. 714 and we agree with much of what was said by the learned Chief Justice in that case. Mr. Justice Stuart in his dissentient judgment refers to the fact that in some cases considerable inconvenience might arise by reason of a proposed guardian improperly refusing to act as guardian. If such a case arises it will be in the power of the Court to appoint an Officer of the Court as guardian ad litem with effect from the date on which the proposed guardian improperly refused to act on behalf of the minor, and in that way the inconvenience which repeated refusals by proposed guardians might cause may satisfactorily be remedied. When a guardian has been appointed by the Court it should be open to the person making a deposit of the, mortgage-money, to pay up the difference of interest between the date of the original deposit and the date of the appointment of the guardian, and in a case where such a deposit has been made, and the full amount has been deposited on the date of the appointment of a guardian further interest on the principal amount of the mortgage should, under the provisions of Section 84, cease.
Sheo Saran Chaudhri And Ors. vs Ram Lagan Das And Ors. on 11 July, 1921
Our attention has been drawn to the case of Shea Saran Chaudhri v. Ram Lagan Das 64 Ind. Cas. 413 : 19 A.L.J. 852 : 44 A. 64 : (1922) A.J.T. 355 decided by Mr. Justice Lindsay and Mr. Justice Stuart. In that case an application was made under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the Court was asked to issue notice to the mortgagee who was a minor under the guardianship of his father. It was held that the application was irregular, inasmuch as no application to have a guardian appointed under Section 103 had been made, and that it was not sufficient merely to state in the application under Section 83 that the mortgagee was a minor under the guardianship of his father and leave it to the Court to take steps to appoint a proper person to represent the minor. Agreeing as we do with the opinion of Mr. Justice Lindsay, we must dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.
1