Skip to content


Ramchandra Vasudeo Vs. Krishnarao Vasudeo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 148 of 1907
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR279
AppellantRamchandra Vasudeo
RespondentKrishnarao Vasudeo
Excerpt:
.....of the person so appointed by the court must cease; and the court is bound to hand over the joint family property to the co-parcenet who has become an adult, although the other co-parceners are minors.;virupa icshappa v. nilgangawa (1894) l.r.r. 19 bom. 309, f.b. applied. bindaji v. mathurabai (1905) l.r. r. 30 bom. 155 : 7 bom. l.r. 809 followed. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was..........l.r. 809 this court expressed an opinion in these terms. ' the reason of the rule that when the joint family originally comprises an adult, a guardian of the property cannot be appointed, (in our opinion) involves the conclusion that as soon as there is an adult co-parcener any guardianship of the property previously constituted either ceases or is liable to cease, for then there is no longer any property in respect of which there can be a guardian.' no doubt this was a mere dictum which was not strictly speaking necessary for the purposes of the decision in that case. but it was an opinion which appears to have been expressed after a careful consideration of the law upon the point, and we accept it as laying down the correct law in such cases.2. where a joint hindu family consists of.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. We are asked to reverse the order of the District Judge in appeal upon the ground that he ought not to have removed the guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. In Bindaji v. Mathurabai LIR (1906) 30 Bom. 165: 7 Bom. L.R. 809 this Court expressed an opinion in these terms. ' The reason of the rule that when the joint family originally comprises an adult, a guardian of the property cannot be appointed, (in our opinion) involves the conclusion that as soon as there is an adult co-parcener any guardianship of the property previously constituted either ceases or is liable to cease, for then there is no longer any property in respect of which there can be a guardian.' No doubt this was a mere dictum which was not strictly speaking necessary for the purposes of the decision in that case. But it was an opinion which appears to have been expressed after a careful consideration of the law upon the point, and we accept it as laying down the correct law in such cases.

2. Where a joint Hindu family consists of coparceners who are all minors, the co-parceners forming one group, the Court has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the property for that group as a whole. But when subsequently one, of that group,arrives at the age of majority, the ruling of the Full Bench in Virupaksappa v. Nilgangauwa I L R (1894) 19 Bom. 309, F.B. must apply and the guardianship of the person so appointed by the Court must cease. The District Judge is right in the present case in holding that as soon as the respondent arrived at the age of majority, the order appointing the Collector guardian of the property ceased to be operative, and the Court was bound to hand over the joint family property to the co-parcener who had become an adult, although the other co-parcener was a minor. We confirm the order with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //