Skip to content


Koppara Kandiyil Changan Mancheri Vs. Anthalathil Kalleri Katheesa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad150(1); 24Ind.Cas.871
AppellantKoppara Kandiyil Changan Mancheri
RespondentAnthalathil Kalleri Katheesa and ors.
Cases ReferredHyderman Kutti v. Syed Ali
Excerpt:
hindu law - minor--guardian de facto--power to alienate minor's estate--necessity--benefit. - .....by the 1st defendant as their guardian.2. the plaint assumes that the 1st defendant was the de jure guardian of the defendants nos. 2 to 5 when she executed the mortgage-deed, but it is now admitted that she was not the de jure guardian of the minors.3. then it is argued that she was the de facto guardian. even if she was, her document could not bind, the minors unless it was executed for meeting such urgent necessity or for securing such clear and undoubted benefit to the minors as are held to be necessary to be proved in hyderman kutti v. syed ali 15 ind. cas. 576 : 23 mad. l.j. 244 : 12 m.l.t. 147 : (1912) m.w.n. 889. no foundation was laid on the plaint for any such case and having looked into the evidence of the only two witnesses examined on the plaintiff's side, we find no.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He wants to enforce against the defendants No. 2 to 5 (children of the 1st defendant) a mortgage-deed executed by the 1st defendant as their guardian.

2. The plaint assumes that the 1st defendant was the de jure guardian of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 when she executed the mortgage-deed, but it is now admitted that she was not the de jure guardian of the minors.

3. Then it is argued that she was the de facto guardian. Even if she was, her document could not bind, the minors unless it was executed for meeting such urgent necessity or for securing such clear and undoubted benefit to the minors as are held to be necessary to be proved in Hyderman Kutti v. Syed Ali 15 Ind. Cas. 576 : 23 Mad. L.J. 244 : 12 M.L.T. 147 : (1912) M.W.N. 889. No foundation was laid on the plaint for any such case and having looked into the evidence of the only two witnesses examined on the plaintiff's side, we find no such necessity or undoubted benefit established by that evidence.

4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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