Whether the sale deed executed by the mother in respect of the shares of her minor sons and daughters is a void or voidable transaction ? =Father is the natural guardian and in his absence other legal guardians would be entitled to act. In their absence, property guardian appointed by the competent court would be competent to alienate property of the minor with the permission of the court. When a sale is to be made on behalf of the minor the necessary ingredients are that the sale must be for the benefit of the estate of minor and, therefore, the competent person entitled to alienate the minor's property would be, subject to the above condition, either the natural guardian or the property guardian appointed by the Court. In this Case after the demise of the father no property guardian was appointed. The mother, therefore, is not guardian for the alienation of the property of the minor. The sale made by the mother therefore, is void." In view of the above, the sale deed by mother Musammat Fatima Bibi of the 14/16 share of her minor children was void and not voidable. A void document can be avoided even if the same is not cancelled. As the mother is not appointed by court or by her husband but the minors who attained major has to refund the sale considerationThe mother sold the property and received the sale consideration for the entire property. The said amount must have been spent by her mainly on her minor children. The sale is not binding upon the minor children but they are duty bound to return the amount to the purchaser appellant. 2015 Allahabad(2012)msklawreports

Whether the sale deed executed by the mother in respect of the shares of her minor sons and daughters is a void or voidable transaction ? =Father is the natural guardian and in his absence other legal guardians would be entitled to act. In their absence, property guardian appointed by the competent court would be competent to alienate property of the minor with the permission of the court. When a sale is to be made on behalf of the minor the necessary ingredients are that the sale must be for the benefit of the estate of minor and, therefore, the competent person entitled to alienate the minor's property would be, subject to the above condition, either the natural guardian or the property guardian appointed by the Court. In this Case after the demise of the father no property guardian was appointed. The mother, therefore, is not guardian for the alienation of the property of the minor. The sale made by the mother therefore, is void."   In view of the above, the sale deed by mother Musammat Fatima Bibi of the 14/16 share of her minor children was void and not voidable. A void document can be avoided even if the same is not cancelled. As the mother is not appointed by court or by her husband but the minors who attained major has to refund the sale considerationThe mother sold the property and received the sale consideration for the entire property. The said amount must have been spent by her mainly on her minor children. The sale is not binding upon the minor children but they are duty bound to return the amount to the purchaser appellant. 2015 Allahabad(2012)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more