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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more