9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The admitted case is that one Bathina Krishna Murthy, the 7th defendant is their father and Bathina Nandeeswaramma the 4th defendant is mother. The father executed a gift deed, Ex.A-3 dt. Feb. 21, 1956, gifting over the plaint schedule property and other properties in favour of the respondent, appointing their mother as guardian. Subsequently, the mother executed on behalf of the respondents, the contract of sale dated February 9, 1964 under Ex.B-7 alienating the B Schedule property, in favour of the predecessor-iwtitle of the appellants for a valuable consideration of ₹ 2,800/- and received ₹ 300/- as advance and inducted the appellants' predecessor-in-title, in possession. Thus, under the contract of sale, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Court below has committed error in declaring that the sale is invalid. The father has relinquished his right to be a guardian by executing the settlement deed and appointing their mother a guardian to represent their estate and subsequently the mother has assumed as a guardian of the minors, she entered into a contract of sale with the appellants' predecessor-in-title. Admittedly there is a specific recital in Ex.B-7 that the sale was made-for the benefit of the estate of the respondents to purchase lands elsewhere. The appellants' predecessor-in-title denied the plea that it is not a bona fide contract of sale for the benefit of the estate of the minors. Therefore, the Court below grievously erred in decreeing. the suit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex.A-3 dt. Feb. 21, 1956 gifting over the B Schedule property and other properties in favour of the respondents, and he appointed the mother as guardian thereunder. Subsequently the mother, as guardian entered into the contract of sale Ex.B-7, in favour of P. Lakshmaiah the predecessor-in-title of the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that the mother, father and the children were living together. In the contract of sale, Ex' B-7, there is a specific recital that the contract had been entered into with a view to purchase the lands elsewhere to augment the, estate of the minors. The lands to be purchased would be given as a security for the lands, the subject matter of the contract of sale under Ex. B-7, in the event of defect in ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided interest referred to in S. 12 or in respect of both. Sub. sec. (3) of S. 9 provides thus: A Hindu widow entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children and a Hindu mother entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children by reason of the fact that the father has become disentitled to act as such, may, by will, appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor's person or in respect of the minor's property (other than the undivided interest referred to in S. 12) or in respect of both. A conjoint reading of these provisions clearly leads to the conclusion that under S.9(1) lather is entitled to act as a natural guardian and if he becomes disentitled to act as suel.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is implicit from S. 9(1) that the widow or the person appointed in a will executed by the kartha is entitled to assume .management of the person and property of a minor only after the demise of the kartha. On the other hand, the disentitlement may be on one of the grounds. viz., either incurring any of the disqualifications to act as a kartha or legal disability or voluntary disclaimer. So long as the father, kartha is alive S. 12 prohibits appointment of the property guardian to, a minor in respect of his undivided interest in the coparcenary. Therefore,' during the lifetime of the Kartha, the entitlement or the need to appointment of a Court Guardian to the undivided, interest of the minor coparcener does not spring into being. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen whether the sale is binding on, the appellants. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the sale becomes unenforceable. Admittedly under the contract of sale possession was given to the vendee and the appellants' predecessor-in-title and the appellants continued to be in possession under the contract of sale, Ex. B-7. The cause of action to enforce it arises only when the right under Ex.B-7 is repudiated. Till then, they are entitled to continue in possession, and S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act steps in and protects the appellants of their possession so long as the contract is enforceable, the possession of the vendees do not become unlawful. Section 58 A of the Transfer of Property Act prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
