Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Apr-16-2015
..... and 3 would submit that the subject suit property was the joint family property and, as such, the provisions contained in sub section 2 of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (henceforth hmga, 1956 ) are not attracted. he would further submit that the trial court relied upon the will allegedly executed by late bharat lal awadhiya in favour of plaintiffs have neither ..... the fact that no substantial question of law has been framed by this court regarding legal necessity. he would further submit that the provisions of section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (hence-forth hmga, 1956) is squarely attracted in the facts of the case as in disposal of immovable property by natural guardian, section 8(2) of the hmga ..... be held to of the exclusive owner-ship of plaintiffs 1 to 3? 2. whether in view of the fact that property was joint hindu family property, provisions of section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardian-ship act, 1956 are attracted? (2) the imperative facts required for determination of above-stated substantial questions of law are as under:- [for the sake of convenience ..... , 1956 would be attracted and as such no such substantial questions of law are involved and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. (10) i have heard learned counsel appearing for the .....Tag this Judgment!