Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.040 seconds)

Mar 03 1987 (HC)

V.M. Rao Vs. Parameswari Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Mad230

..... that the guardian in his mind does not attach any importance to the permission of the court. the previous permission of the court provided under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 cannot be allowed to be considered by the guardian in such a light manner. the previous permission should exist before the starting of the operation of the mortgage. at ..... registration there is no mortgage and therefore the permission can be obtained at any time prior to such a registration. this will be quite contrary to the scheme of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 which clearly -stipulates that the natural guardian shall not without the previous permission of the court mortgage the property. therefore, in this case it is not the completion ..... petition in op. 238/67 was filed on 7.767 by the father and mother for permission to mortgage the property belonging to the minors under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. under section 8 of the act, the natural guardian shall not mortgage a property without the previous permission of the court. the law is therefore, very clear that any dealing ..... any rate, as far as the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 is concerned, it is not completion of the transaction that is, contemplated but the operation itself and that operation, by virtue of section 47 of the registration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1987 (HC)

Santhos Kumar and ors. Vs. Verghese George and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-10-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Ker277

..... that the guardian (1st defendant) has not obtained sanction from the court under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 to alienate the property belonging to minors. in ext. a3 defendants 1 and 2 cleverly avoided to state the right and title of the minors over a portion of the property which they obtained as per ext. a4 sale deed.7. section ..... 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act enumerates the powers of a natural guardian. section 8(1) reads :'the natural guardian of a hindu minor ..... is found that defendants 1 and 2 have no title with regard to 18 cents of property belonging to the minor defendants and as they did not obtain sanction of the court as provided under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act specific performance cannot be granted with regard to that item of property. in such a case the court has ..... submitted that specific performance of the agreement is not possible against the minor defendants, that the agreement is vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act relating to the alienation of minors' property, that there is nothing to show that the proposed alienation of the minors' property was to their benefit and that the court failed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1987 (HC)

Parnam Balaji and anr. Vs. Bathina Venkatramayya and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-07-1987

Reported in : AIR1988AP250

..... these facts, the question that emerges is, whether the mother can act as is guardian on behalf of the minors. undoubtedly, under s. 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (act 32 of 1956) in short 'the act', after the commencement of the act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de ..... facto guardian of the minor, where the minor has an undivided interest in the ..... joint family property. section 12 postulates that in respect of an undivided interest of a minor ..... guardian does not arise. the proviso preserved the power of the high court to appoint a property guardian. but s. 9 of the act provides that a hindu father is entitled to act as the natural guardian of his minor legitimate, children in respect of his person or property other than the undivided interest referred to in s. 12 or in respect of both .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1987 (SC)

B. Ramender Reddy and ors Vs. B.V. Satyanarayan Reddy

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-17-1987

Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC160

a.p. sen and; v. balakrishnan eradi, jj.1. in these appeals there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved. the high court on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties has, in agreement with the city civil court, come to a definite finding that the agreement, exhibit e-1, entered into by smt j.b. savithri reddy, mother of the respondent, purporting to act as his legal guardian during his minority, was sham and nominal and was not intended to be acted upon. it has also held that the said agreement was not binding on the respondent since his mother was not a legal guardian under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. the circumstances brought out in the judgment of the high court do give rise to an inference that the agreement relied upon was merely a device to defeat the provisions of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 and the other land laws. in the circumstances, we are satisfied that the courts below have rightly exercised their judicial discretion in not decreeing the suit brought by the appellants for specified performance of the alleged contract and in decreeing the suit by the respondent for possession based on trespass.2. accordingly, these appeals must fail and are dismissed. however, having regard to the fact the parties are closely related, we direct that the costs shall be borne by the parties as incurred.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1987 (HC)

Smt. Shobha Kshirsagar Vs. Smt. Janki Kshirsagar and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-1987

Reported in : AIR1987MP145; 1988MPLJ28

..... court below, merits serious reconsideration in all its aspects.6. reliance was placed by shri modi withgreat confidence and composure on theprovisions of sub-section (2) of section 9 ofthe hindu minority and guardianship act,1956, for short, hmga, to urge that the willex. d/8 ought to have been totally excludedfrom consideration by the court below. hehas also placed reliance on the provisions ofsection ..... be paramount consideration.-- (1) in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) no person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions ofthis act or of any law relating to guardianshipin marriage among the hindus, if the court isof opinion that his ..... code as it is expressly envisaged in section 2 thereof that the provisions of gwa are to be resorted to whenever an order is sought from a guardianship court in respect even of a hindu 'minor' as respects his person and property. however, i may also note here what sections 6 and 8 of hmga, which are not extracted, do contemplate. the natural ..... any case, is to be found in section 7, gwa, because the power of a court to pass an order of guardianship as respects a hindu 'minor' is not 'expressly' affected by any of the provisions of gwa, keeping in view the provision of section 2, hmga, it is difficult to hold that provision of section 9, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1987 (HC)

Chaniram Sahu Vs. Samaru Nag and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-06-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Ori136; 65(1988)CLT56

..... .r. kishna iyer, j. (as he then was) discussing the provision of section 8 (2) and (3) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 observed as follows : --'in the present case, however, we are concerned with a specific statute, namely.section 8 of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. it is in disputable that no sanction of the court was taken for the alienation in the present case by ..... had not elapsed by 16-3-71 when the sale deed in favour of defendants 6 to 8 was executed. referring to section 8 (2) and (3) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 the court held that since prior permission of the district judge was admittedly not taken before the sale deed (ext. 1) was executed, the transaction was voidable one and the ..... the sale deed as per ext. 1 without taking prior permission of the court. (ii) this transaction was hit by section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and, therefore, was voidable at the instance of the minors or any person claiming under them as provided under section 8(3). (iii) defendants 2 and 3 on attaining majority, did not file any suit ..... the mother acting as the guardian of the minor and, therefore, there is a plain violation of section 8(2) of the act. consequently, section 8(3) is attracted and the disposal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1987 (HC)

K.R. Subbakrishna Vs. Ningiah and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1987

Reported in : AIR1989Kant31

..... a release deed and also for the fact that no permission was obtained from the district court as required under s. 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. he also held that the question of legal necessity would not survive and decreed the suit.3. the first appellate court however found that ..... a portion of the property or more; there was interest of the minor in this entire property sold in favour of basavegowda. he claimed that it is the ancestral property ..... plaintiff was admittedly a minor he having born on 6-2-1951 perhaps he was about 14 years of age then. the challenge was on two grounds, namely, that no permission was obtained by smt. jayamma from the district court under s. 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, when she was selling ..... and jayamma was asked to look after not only of her interest, but also that of her minor ..... his wife during his lifetime as she had no subsisting interest in the properties. but according to him because of s. 6 of the hindu succession act, when ramanna died in the year 1966 a notional partition comes into effect and she, is entitled to succeed to the properties in which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1987 (HC)

Janardhanan Pillai Appukuttan Nair and ors. Vs. Bhagavathykutty Amma R ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-31-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Ker303

..... wife. the main contention of the plaintiff is that the sale by her parents was without obtaining the sanction of the court as required under section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. that sub-section says :'(2) the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court, -- (a) .......... transfer by sale,........any part of the immovable ..... property of the minor, or (b) ...................,.........' sub-section (4) says :'no court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case ..... in the circumstances of this case, granted, for undoubtedly the sale was for 'an evident advantage to the minor'. he contends, therefore, that the transaction should be regarded as valid.4. the act has prescribed transfer of immovable property of a minor without the specific sanction of the court. the sanction can be obtained only on proof of certainfacts. the court ..... of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.'2. both the courts found that the sanction of the court as required under section 8(2) had not been obtained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1987 (HC)

Narmita Kapur Vs. Anil Kapur and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-27-1987

Reported in : 32(1987)DLT385; 1988RLR87

..... arc firmly of the view and are even convinced that the custody of the infant mohit, viewed both from the legal provision contained in s. 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 as also from the welfare consideration lies only with the mother who is the petitioner in this case. the child is present in court and we direct the respondents to ..... of the children of the tender age must be left with the mother looking to the aforesaid authorities as also the law provided in s. 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and the tender age of the infant in question the best interest of the infant as also his weal fare shall be served only by placing him in the custody ..... tender age the custody would be best suited only with the mother and this has been even given legislative recognition by the enactment of s. 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 whereunder the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. this provision is reproduced below :- 'the natural guardians of a ..... hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are- (a) in the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1987 (HC)

Narinder Kaur Vs. Parshotam Singh

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-07-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Delhi359; 34(1988)DLT54

..... the mother (appellant herein) filed a petition under section 25 of guardians and wards act, 1890 (for short the act) seeking custody of the child sonu. this petition was filed on or ..... and allowed the custody of the minor to remain with the respondent father. (2) the parties were married on 17.11.1982, a male child was born to the parties on 13.8.1983. he is named gurmit @ sonu, the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (for short 1956 act) apply in the present case. ..... on account of her having no income of her own. section ] 3 of the 1956 act says that in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. this has to be kept in view while ordering interim ..... prem nath kapur, : air1969delhi283 . the guardian judge thereforee directed that during the pendency of the petition under section 25 of the act the custody of the minor child be handed over to the mother. he also gave directions for the father to meet the child on certain dates and fixed the ..... result she was made to leave the house in march 1986. immediately thereafter the present petition under section 25 of the act was filed claiming custody of the minor child. in the first order dated 18.8.1986 on the application for interim custody the learned guardian judge/held that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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