Skip to content


Suttya Ghosal Vs. Suttyanund Ghosal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1876)ILR1Cal389
AppellantSuttya Ghosal
RespondentSuttyanund Ghosal and ors.
Excerpt:
majority act (ix of 1875), section 3 - minor--guardian-ad-litem. - .....to her husband as her guardian. the lady having now attained the age of 18, applies for the payment to her in future of the said rs. 425 and for a sum of rs. 4,000 out of the accumulations of her share of the minor. the question arises whether she is still a minor. in my opinion she is, for the decree in the suit made her a ward of court, and i think the appointment by the court of her husband as guardian ad litem was sufficient to bring her within section 3 of the majority act, 1875, at all events so far as relates to the property in suit. i shall, however, order the sum of rs. 4,000 now applied for and the future maintenance to be paid to her personally, as her guardian consents to such payments being made. the receiver will get his costs, and the infant's costs will be paid out of.....
Judgment:

Pontifex, J.

1. Act IX of 1875 was passed for the purpose of attaining greater certainty respecting the age of majority, but itself causes the uncertainty out of which this application arises. Section 3 of the Act is as follows: 'Every minor of whose person or property a guardian has been or shall be appointed by any Court of Justice, and every minor under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act, or in any other enactment, be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of 21 years, and not before.'

2. The suit in which this application is made was instituted before 1872, and when the present applicant was a minor under the age of 18 years. She was made a defendant to the suit, which was for partition. She was at the time a married woman, and her husband, who would have been her natural guardian, was appointed by this Court her guardian ad litem. By the decree in the suit it was, amongst other things, ordered, that Rs. 425 out of her share of the income of the estate, which was the subject of the suit, should be paid monthly to her husband as her guardian. The lady having now attained the age of 18, applies for the payment to her in future of the said Rs. 425 and for a sum of Rs. 4,000 out of the accumulations of her share of the minor. The question arises whether she is still a minor. In my opinion she is, for the decree in the suit made her a ward of Court, and I think the appointment by the Court of her husband as guardian ad litem was sufficient to bring her within Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875, at all events so far as relates to the property in suit. I shall, however, order the sum of Rs. 4,000 now applied for and the future maintenance to be paid to her personally, as her guardian consents to such payments being made. The receiver will get his costs, and the infant's costs will be paid out of her share of the estate. Mr. Allen's client's costs will be paid out of her share.


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