Skip to main content

Guardian can’t sell minors’ share in property without permission: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that sale of minors’ property cannot be done without obtaining court’s permission.

Quashing sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the Supreme Court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court.

“As per clause (a) of sub­section (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court,” a bench of SJ Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said.

“Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub­section (1) or sub­section (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him,” it said.

The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood.

“In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question,” the bench said.

The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

Article referred: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/11/25/guardian-cant-sell-minors-share-in-property-without-permission-supreme-court-161493.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more