Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardinship act 1956 section 11 de facto guardian not to deal with minors property Page 1 of about 233 results (0.188 seconds)

Jul 28 2000 (HC)

Jadav Prabhatbhai Jethabhai Vs. Parmar Karsanbhai Dhulabhai

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR2001Guj118; (2001)1GLR16

..... . the rights and limitation of 'de facto guardian' prior to 1956 act, were virtually almost equal and since it was thought by the parliament that at times 'de facto guardian' may act adverse to the interest of the minors while bringing the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, a specific provision has been incorporated in section 11. so the 'de facto guardian', under the provision of section 11, would not be able to deal with minor's property as a person with such a status used to ..... came into existence in hindu law. before the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, came into force, the position of the natural guardian and de facto guardian was virtually identical, except in certain respects. after the 1956 act, it has been clearly provided in section 11 that de facto guardian shall not be entitled to dispose of or deal with the property of a hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor. 31. in bailochan koran ..... do under uncodified hindu law. since our case is governed by the old .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2002 (HC)

G. Murugan and ors. Vs. Manickam

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2003Mad129

..... and de facto guardian of the minors. which is not valid and binding upon them.14. section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 prohibits the sale of minors* property by the de facto guardian and it says, 'after the commencement 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 the de facto guardian of the minor.' as such, any alienation made by the de facto guardian ..... , after the, commencement of this act ..... , would be void ab initio and the alienee would not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2003 (HC)

Vishwanath Son of Bhika Kolase and Raghunath Son of Bhika Kolase Vs. K ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR1093; 2004(2)BomCR399

..... their step-mother and she was not a natural guardian within the meaning of section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and since the permission having been not taken the said transaction was illegal. he further submitted that since the defendant no.4, the step-mother was a de facto guardian, section 11 of the said act made it clear that the de facto guardian could not be deal with the property of minor. it was, therefore, submitted that ..... three classes, namely , - (1)natural guardians, (2)testamentary guardians, and(3)guardians appointed under the guardians and wards act, 1890, and the present bill is supplemental to the guardians and wards act, 1890, and deals with natural guardian and testamentary guardians incidentally abolishing de facto guardians,(4)the notes on clauses explain, wherever necessary, the various provisions contained in the bill.act no.32 of 1956. hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (32 of 1956) received the assent of the president ..... on 25th august, 1956 after being passed by both the houses of parliament.the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 is supplemental to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2013 (HC)

Kalu and ors Vs. Prakash and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... above. so far as the provisions of section 11 of the act are 8 concerned, the same deals with restriction on a de facto guardian, who is not entitled to dispose of or deal with, the property of a hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor. as noticed here-in-above, the provisions of order xxxii does not require a guardian to file the suit on behalf of ..... lal is neither a natural guardian nor guardian appointed by the court he is not entitled ..... a suit as next friend. it was submitted that if the intention of legislature is gathered then provisions of order xxxii, rule 3 cpc would also apply to a suit by the minor and as admittedly amba ..... the application under order vii, rule 11 cpc filed by the petitioners.it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the over all scheme of order xxxii provides that a suit by or against minor can only be filed by the natural guardian and / or person entitled under the provisions of the hindu minority & guardianship act, 1956 ('the act') and no one else can file .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1966 (HC)

Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. Minor Ramachandran and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1967Mad113

..... decisions s. 11 of the act now takes away these powers completely. after the commencement if the 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 the de facto guardian of the minor. the contention of mr. r. gopalaswami aiyangar to get over this interdict is that arumugha padayachi is not a de facto guardian but a guardian. reference ..... p. 258: (air 1956 mad 476 at p. 477) where it is stated.a de facto guardian is one who is not a legal guardian in the sense that he either a natural guardian or a testamentary guardian or a court guardian, but who being interested in the minor though a stranger, takes share of the management of the minor's property".section 4(2) of the guardians and wards act, viii of 1890, defines ..... padayachi has the care of the properties of the minor plaintiff. he is not a guardian in law, being neither a natural guardian or a testamentary guardian or a guardian appointed by court. he will therefore be a guardian by fact, that is a de facto guardian. so the interdiction under s. 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act of 1956 would certainly apply to the acts of arumugha padayachi as guardian, de facto. trevelyan in his law relating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 1995 (HC)

Vasant Rao and ors. Vs. Farooq-ali and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1995(3)ALT1; I(1996)DMC48

..... .2 and 13.4 are hit by section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act as defendant no. 4 who claimed to be a de facto guardian was debarred from dealing with the property of the minor-plaintiffs at any cost and that in such a situation, having due regard to the provisions of such an act, the law which emanated from the sastric hindu law did not operate in such area. mr. prasad ..... guardianship till hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, came into force on 25.8.1956 appears to be only guardian and wards act, 1890 and the indian majority act. that was to be read along with the personal law like hindu law in order to know the legal consequences of such alienations. from and after 25.8.1956 by virtue of hindu minority and guardianship act with section 2, the law under guardian and wards act, 1890, has ..... can be styled as a de facto guardian, has dealt with the suit property which is the personal property of the minor plaintiffs. mr. prasad, the learned advocate for the contesting defendants, has tried to draw the distinction that since the transaction was over under ex. b.4, there was no question of ex. a.2 being hit by section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. the same reasoning given .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1966 (HC)

Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. Minor Ramachandran and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ420

..... hindu minority and guardianship act of 1956 in the circumstances of the case is erroneous. he argues that arumugha padyachi has been specifically named and appointed guardian of the minor plaintiffs under the settlement exhibit a-1 and therefore he would be a legal guardian even under the said act to effect the conveyance. it is submitted that section 11 of the act prohibits only a de facto guardian from disposing of or dealing with the property ..... numerous decisions. section 11 of the act now takes away these powers completely. after the commencement of the 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 the de facto guardian of the minor. the contention of mr. r. gopalaswami iyengar to get over this interdict is that arumugha padayachi is not a de facto guardian but a guardian. reference ..... padayachi has the care of the properties of the minor plaintiffs. he is not a guardian in law, being neither a natural guardian or a testamentary guardian or a guardian appointed by court. he will therefore be a guardian in fact, that is a de facto guardian. so the interdiction under section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act of 1956 would certainly apply to the acts of arumugha padayachi as guardian, de facto. trevelyan in his law relating to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1959 (HC)

Katam Virupakshiah and ors. Vs. Matam Sivalingaiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1960AP540

..... . the more substantial point raised by sri n.m. sastry is that the petitioners' next friend was merely a de facto guardian and that under section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act 32 of 4956, a de facto guardian has no power to dispose of or deal with the property of a hindu minor. this point was overruled altogether by the learned district munsiff. air 1937 all 740 was apparently a case where the ..... effect of section 12 is to retain the prohibition against the appointment of any guardian for the petitioner's ..... their undivided share of the joint family property as security. thus the finding of the learned district munsiff that the petitioners are not paupers has no relation to the facts of the case.10. sri n. ramamohana rao sought to support the lower court's finding by invoking the proviso to section 12 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. he pointed out that although the ..... on which the order in question is based is the ground specified hi clause (d) of order xxxiii. rule 5, viz., that the allegations in o. p. 28 of 1956 do not disclose a cause of action, the contention of sri n. ramamohana rao that an appeal lay from the order is well founded. sri n. m. sastry, the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1996 (SC)

Ganayya and anr. Vs. Radhabai and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1998(9)SC292; (1997)11SCC332

..... 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 the de facto guardian of the minor. 5. a bare reading of section 11 goes to show that it explicitly ..... provides that after the commencement of the said act ..... the provisions of section 11 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 were not attracted to the facts of the present case and, therefore, dismissed the petition. 4. thus the question before us for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the provisions of section 11 of the hindu minority & guardianship act, 1956 are attracted or not. section 11 of the said act reads as under: 11. de facto guardian not to deal with minor's property.after the commencement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1975 (HC)

Ranganatha Gounder and anr. Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1976)2MLJ128

..... that it is only the natural guardian who has got the power to deal with the immovable properties of the minors, and tb at too, with the permission of the court. the further effect of this act is that it has taken away the power of any de facto guardian to deal with the property of a hindu minor, which power was available to a de jacto guardian under the prior hindu law in certain stated circumstances. as ..... , still the sixth respondent has no power to alienate' the said properties. section 11 of the act which i have already extracted abrogates the power of the dejactqguardian to deal with any property of a minor, whether it is an undivided interest in a joint family property or not. unlike sections 6 and 9, which while referring1 to the 'minor's property' expressly state ''excluding his or her undivided interest in, joint family ..... , dated 22nd august, 1957 was effected after the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, came into force on 25th august, 1956. consequently, it is the provisions of this act that apply to the case in question. under section 6 of that act, 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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