KRISHNAKANT MAGANBHAI Vs. STATE
LAWS(GJH)-1960-10-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 14,1960

KRISHNAKANT MAGANBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ARUN KUMAR VS. CHANDRAWATI AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-1977-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMARS VS. KAMESHWAR NATH [LAWS(ALL)-1998-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNAMANI DEI VS. BABAJI DAS [LAWS(ORI)-1974-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASEKHAR VS. SIDDALINGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1986-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARI AMMAL VS. THILAKAVATHI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1987-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
DHANASEKARAN VS. MANORANJITHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1991-9-10] [DISSMISED FROM 1959 ANDH LT 67 6A]
DHANASEKARAN VS. MANORANJITHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1992-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHAR SINGH VS. ANAND SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-4-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.N.BHAGWATI - (1.)This is a Civil Revision Application directed against an order passed by the District Judge Surat granting sanction to the petitioner to sell certain immovable property belonging to the joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of himself his wile and four children who are all minors. The order has been made by the learned District Judge under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order is substantially in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has been granted sanction to sell the said immovable property but under the order certain condition has been imposed and it is against that condition that the petitioner complains in this Civil Revision Application
(2.)The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows :The petitioner is the Manager and Karta of the joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of himself his wife and four children who are all minors. Out of the four children two are sons and two are daughters. The said immovable property belongs to the said joint and undivided Hindu family and each of the minor sons has an undivided share in the said immovable property. On or about 15/03/1960 the petitioner as Manager as Karta of the said joint and undivided Hindu family entered into an agreement for sale of the said immovable property for the price of Rs 39 251 Since the said immovable property is joint family property and the minor sons has an interest in the said immovable property the petitioner made an application to the District Judge Surat for permission to sell the said immovable properly on behalf of the minor sons under section 8 of the Act The said application was made by the petitioner as the natural guardian of the minor sons and it was pointed out in the said application that the proposed sale of the said immovable property was for an evident advantage to the minor sons. The said application was heard by the learned District Judge and by an order dated 30/04/1960 the learned District Judge granted permission to the petitioner to sell the said immovable property on behalf of the minor sons under section 8 of the Act but imposed a condition that the petitioner should execute a bond with one surety for Rs. 20 0 to secure the interest of the minor sons in the said immovable property. The petitioner found that he was not in a position to comply with the said condition as he knew no one in Surat who was ready and willing to be a surety for Rs. 20 0 He therefore filed this Civil Revision Application against the order of the learned District Judge complaining against the imposition of the said condition.
(3.)When this Civil Revision Application came up before me for hearing and my attention was drawn to the relevant sections of the Act I felt prima facie that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to make any order under section 8 of the Act in respect of the undivided share of a minor in joint family property. I therefore asked Mr. B. J. Shelat the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner to satisfy me whether the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to make the order dated 30/04/1960 under section 8 of the Act. If the said order was without jurisdiction the petitioner was not entitled do maintain this Civil Revision application because this Civil Revision Application proceeded on the basis that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to make the said order but that he had acted illegally or with material irregularity in imposing the condition regarding the execution of a bond for Rs. 20 0 with one surety. What the petitioner wanted in this Civil Revision Application was the removal of the said condition and that could be granted only if the said order was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge to make. In order to dispose of this Civil Revision Application it was therefore necessary for me to decide whether the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to make the said order. The matter was fully argued before me by Mr. B. J. Shelat and he drew my attention to various sections of the Act and contended that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction under section 8 of the Act to make an order in respect of the undivided share of a minor in joint family property.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.