P GOVINDAPPA Vs. DODDATHAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases which are referred by Narayana Pai J. to a Bench of two Judges, pose the question whether this Court has the power to appoint a guardian for a minor in respect of his undividied interest in Hindu joint family property in the area of the former State of Mysore, which, is under the management of an adult member of the family. Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Central Act 32 of 1956) forbids such appointment save in the exercise of jurisdiction to which the proviso to is refers. That Section is:

(2.) The petitioners who are the managers of their families have agreed to sell family property in this State to a company in Bombay and seek their appointment as guardians of their minor children in respect of their undivided interest in family property situate in the area of the former State of Mysore, and our sanction to such alienation. This Court which does not exercise in that area any original jurisdiction not expressly conferred by a statue, could, it was submitted by Mr. Desai, make the appointment in the exercise of jurisdiction flowing from the proviso to this section. But Mr. Advocate-General to whom we are beholden for his assistance argued that the proviso does no more than to preserve existing jurisdiction.

(3.) Article 225 of the Constitution which continued the old jurisdiction of the High Courts, created no embargo on the enlargement of such jurisdiction and so, in the field of the 5th and 46th entries in the concurrent list, Parliament could bestow on a High Court which did not already possess it, jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for a minor in respect of his undivided interest in family property managed by an adult member of the family.