Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

Civil Revision Application No. 318 of 2011. Case: Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag Vs Satyanarayan Chatrabhuj Handibag and Anr. High Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberCivil Revision Application No. 318 of 2011
CounselFor Applicant: Suresh W. Mundhe, Adv. and For Respondents: S. G. Dargad, K. M. Suryawanshi, AGP
JudgesS. S. Shinde, J.
IssueHindu Minority and Guardianship Act (32 of 1956) - Section 8(4); Guardians and Wards Act (8 of 1890) - Sections 29, 31
CitationAIR 2012 Bom 163
Judgement DateThursday July 26, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

  2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

  3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambejogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011.

  4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that the said land is purchased for Rs.4.00 lacs and the respondent No.1 wants to sell it for just Rs.2.00 lacs, that itself, shows that the respondent No.1 is not interested in protecting the interest of the minor and the Court has also not considered the interest of the minor. It is submitted that there are other properties standing in the name of respondent No.1, his father and mother, however, the respondent has chosen to sell the property, which is in the name of Ku. Kamna. It is submitted that, even the Court should have considered the provision of Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. However, the court has not considered the said provisions, therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Application, annexures thereto and the decisions of the Assam High Court in the case of Sarat Kalita and others v. Dharma Ram Deka and others, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 44 as well as Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarini Kumar Dutta and others v. Srish Chandra Das, reported in AIR 1925 Calcutta 1160, counsel for the applicant submits that the interest of the minor i.e. Ku. Kamna has not been considered, at all, by the trial court and has proceeded to allow the application of the respondent No.1 for sell of the land, which stands in the name of Ku. Kamna.

    Learned counsel has tendered, across the bar, a copy of notice received by the applicant in Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.1 herein, before...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT