Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 Year: 1971 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.038 seconds)

Aug 20 1971 (HC)

iruppakkatt Veettil Viswanathan's wife Santha Vs. Deceased Kandan's L. ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-20-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Ker71

..... there.9. in the present case, however, we are concerned with a specific statute, namely. section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act. 1956. it is indisputable that no sanction of the court was taken for the alienation in the present case by the mother ..... that the parties are hindus governed by that act.3. a manager of a joint hindu family alienating family property has only limited powers. so also a hindu widow vis-a-vis the reversioners to the estate of ..... natural guardian of the minor. the key question is as to whether a minor, whose property had been transferred by her natural guardian, can avoid it or should get it set aside by a decree even if the sale be in contravention of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, it being admitted ..... her husband. a guardian of a minor or a trustee of a ..... a natural guardian's alienation is good until set aside by court have not considered the impact of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act. that statutory provision enables the minor to affirm or disaffirm the transaction without suit. in this view, i allow the appeals and direct that the execution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1971 (HC)

Radheshyam Kamila Vs. Sm. Kiran Bala Dasi and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-25-1971

Reported in : AIR1971Cal341,75CWN391

..... above decisions and contended that the view in mir sarwarjan's case, (1911-12) 16 cal wn 74 (pc) was still good law, apart from the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 on which his contentions are being dealt with later. mr. syama charan mitter the learned counsel for the respondents has in addition to the decisions cited above, drew my attention ..... far as the contracts for purchase entered into by the guardian of the minors are concerned. it was further observed in that case after passing of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (act 32 of 1956) which came into force on august 25, 1956, that the authority of the natural guardian even to transfer the minor's property for legal necessity has been taken away. such transfer can now ..... there was no mutuality in such contract. further, the contract was not warranted by section 8(1) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956.3. the suit was tried on evidence before the learned munsif, who on a consideration of the judicial decisions, held that the doctrine of mutuality of contract has since lost ..... there was no evidence that the purchase of the property would bind the estate of the minors. the court further found that the contract under consideration is authorised by section 8(1) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. on merits the court also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the specific performance of contract as prayed for. the suit was accordingly decreed.4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1971 (HC)

Talari Erappa Vs. Muthyalappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-18-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Kant31; AIR1972Mys31; (1971)2MysLJ164

..... with the sale of item no. 1 in favour of defendant 2 under exhibit d-4 dated 5-2-1959 after the coming into force of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act).3. the trial court decreed the claim of the plaintiff in respect of all the suit items except item no. 1. aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff ..... by defendant-5 in favour of defendant 2 stood ratified, and therefore, the plaintiff could not impeach it- section 11 of the act provides that after the commence- ment of this act no person shall be entitled to dispose of or deal with the property of a hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being a de facto guardian of the ..... minor. from the wording of the section, it is clear that it brings about material change in the law relating to de facto guardians ..... under hindu law- in view of the prohibition contained in the express terms that after the commencement of this act no person .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1971 (HC)

Shivamurti Vs. Vijaysing Vinayakrao Dudhe

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-27-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Bom152; (1971)73BOMLR709

..... could not, therefore, be granted to the respondent's father.4. it was sought to be contended by mr. jahagirdar that such a construction of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, would place an innocent purchaser at the mercy of an unscrupulous natural guardian. such considerations cannot, however, affect the construction of a statutory provision when the intention of the ..... aid to the construction of a statutory provision. the question that arises in this appeal will, therefore, have to be decided on a plain reading of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956.3. turning to that section, it is important to note at the outset that sub - section (1) thereof lays down the powers of a natural guardian in general ..... the application was framed and tried by the assistant judge at satara who, by his judgment dated 30th june 1970, held that under the provisions of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, it was for the natural guardian alone to make such an application. he, therefore, dismissed the application, and it is from that order of dismissal that the present appeal ..... his guardian - ad - litem for the said suit, and not his father. on the 25th of march 1969, the appellant filed an application under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, in the court of the district judge at satara against the respondent, as represented by his mother, for permission for the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1971 (HC)

Khyali Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-25-1971

Reported in : 1971CriLJ1365

..... of his son. they too therefore, cannot be held to have committed an offence under section 363 of the indian penal code.5. no doubt, under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother but the father being the natural guardian of a ..... . applicant khyali ram is admittedly the father of the minor kalua. under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, he is the natural guardian of the minor. it is true that the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother as provided under the aforesaid act. as khyali ram is the natural guardian even if ..... he has removed the minor from the custody of the mother ..... hindu minor cannot be held to have committed an offence of kidnapping by removing his minor son from the custody of the mother.6. if the son has not yet completed the age of five .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1971 (HC)

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Abinash Chandra Chatterjee

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-07-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Cal143,76CWN48

..... law, and under that law undisputably father is the natural guardian of the person and property of minor son. that law still prevails under section 12 of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. appellant's claim to be appointed guardian in preference to the father of the boy who ..... by their personal law is the natural guardian of the person and property of the minor is based on the history of the boy's ..... make such, an appointment;(g) whether an application has at any time been made to the court or to any other court with respect to the guardianship of the person or property, or both, of the minor, and, if so, when, to what court and with what result;(h) whether the application is for the appointment or declaration of a guardian of ..... act rejecting his prayer to be appointed guardian of the person and property of minor gautam chatterjee who is his daughter's son. the parents of the minor are alive. father of the boy who was joined as opposite party in the petition and is respondent in this court opposed the prayer of the petitioner appellant.2. the parties are governed by dayabhag hindu .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1971 (HC)

K. Kumar Vs. Onkar Nath

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-17-1971

Reported in : AIR1972All81

..... it is also not disputed that under hindu minority and guardianship act, father was the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff. section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act enumerates the power of natural guardian and section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act prohibits a de facto guardian from dealing with the minor's property. section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act is in these words:'8. (1 ..... ) the natural guardian of a hindu minor has power subject to ..... cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are all cases of transfers made by the de facto guardian in spite of the prohibition under hindu minority and guardianship act. narain singh's case, air 1968 pat 318, supra was a case where the transfer of property by a mother was being challenged on the ground ..... reiterated that smt. chameli devi was neither competent to give notice nor was she competent to file the suit as next friend of the minor. his contention is that under hindu minority and guardianship act, father alone being the natural guardian is competent to file the suit. in support of his contentions, he has placed his reliance on daneyi .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1971 (HC)

Kamalamma Vs. Laxminarayana Rao

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-10-1971

Reported in : AIR1971Kant211; AIR1971Mys211; (1971)1MysLJ307

..... age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act as already stated requires the court to keep the welfare of the minor in view while passing an order relating to the guardianship of the person of the minor. the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act referred to above do not in any way lay down any new rule or ..... question. it should be assumed that section 19 does not enact any principle which is derogatory to what is contained in section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act or section 17 of the guardians and wards act. the legislature having taken into account the human behaviour and the way in which the parents deal with their children deliberately enacted section 19 incorporating what ..... that the child was less than two years old at that time and even according to the provisions of section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, the mother would be the proper person to bo in custody of the minor child until the child attains the age of five years. now the child is aged about 9 years. the parties belong to a ..... captain rattan amol singh v. smt. kamaljit kaur . there is no dispute about this proposition. the parliament by enacting section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act which should be read as supple-mental to the guardians and wards act has affirmed the view expressed by the several courts before. section 13(i) requires that in the matter of appointment or declaration of any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1971 (HC)

Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Tejsingh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-22-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Raj137; 1971(4)WLN674

..... permission of the court as required by section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act and the last ground is that the sale was not for the benefit of the minors or their estate. section 8(3) of the hindu minority and guardianship act provides that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention ..... or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minors. if a sale-deed is voidable ..... to the facts of the present case. the sale-deed in the present case was executed by the father of the plaintiffs when they were minors. it was executed on their behalf. the plaintiffs cannot get possession over the property in suit till the sale-deed executed by their father on ..... was impleaded as defendant no. 5 in the suit. the plaintiffs' case was that their father bakhtawarlal and the plaintiffs were members of a joint hindu family, and that bakhtawarlal sold certain property to defendants nos. 1 to 4 namely snkhlal, hukmichand, kastoorchand and gahrilal by a sale-deed dated 10th ..... for the cancellation of the sale-deed and that court-fee is payable under section 38(1)(a) of the rajasthan court-fees and suits valuation act, which runs as follows:--'38. suits for cancellation of decrees etc.-- (1) in a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1971 (HC)

R. Santhakumari Vs. S. Natarajan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-07-1971

Reported in : (1973)2MLJ286

..... rights of the parties. undoubtedly, in these matters the welfare of the child is important. just because under section 6 (a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act the mother is ordinarily entitled to have the custody of the child below five years, it does not mean that if in the interests of ..... looked after by his father and grandmother. under those circumstances the kerala high court held that in spite of section 6 (a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, the mother was not entitled to be appointed as the guardian of the child and get custody of the same. as the proviso under section ..... in custody of the child. it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 6 (a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act normally a child below five years of age should be in the custody of the mother in preference to the father. he also referred ..... the petitioner getting the custody of the child. whatever be the position prior to the passing of hindu minority and guardianship act, after the passing of that act, the statutory provision is that ordinarily the custody of a minor child below the age of 5 years should be with the mother in preference to the father. ..... would not be entitled to the custody of the child albeit the provisions contained under section 6 (a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act. after quoting section 6 (a) of the said act, the learned judges observed at page 404 in column 2 as follows:the other sub-clauses are not relevant for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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