Mahomedan Law--Guardianship--De facto guardian--Powers of alination--Benefit to minor, whether material--Whether transaction can be upheld as family arrangement- Held not valid as the brother is not the natural Guardian to the minor. Under Mahomedan law a person who has charge of the person or property of a minor without being his legal guardian, i.e., a de facto guardian, has no power to convey to another any right or interest in immoveable property which the transferee can enforce against the minor. The question whether the transaction has resulted in a benefit to the minor is immaterial in such cases. Where disputes arose relating to succession to the estate of a deceased Mahomedan between his 3 sons, one of whom was a minor, and other relations, and a deed of settle- ment embodying an agreement in regard to the distribution of the properties belonging to the estate was executed by and between the parties, the eldest son acting as guardian for and on behalf of the minor son: Held, that the deed was not binding on the minor son as his brother was not his legal guardian; as the deed was void it cannot be held as valid merely because it embodied a family arrangement; and the deed was void not only qua the minor, but with regard to all the parties including those who were sui juris. Marriage--Co-habitation -presumption of valid marriage. Under Mahomedan law if there was no insurmountable obstacle to a marriage and the man and woman had cohabited with each other continously and for a prolonged period/he presumption of lawful marriage would arise and it would be sufficient to establish a lawful marriage between them. - 2015 S.C. [1952] msklawreports

Mahomedan  Law--Guardianship--De facto  guardian--Powers of   alination--Benefit to minor, whether  material--Whether transaction  can   be   upheld      as      family arrangement- Held not valid as the brother is not the natural Guardian to the minor.  Under Mahomedan law a person who has charge of the person or  property  of a minor without being his  legal  guardian, i.e., a de facto guardian, has no power to convey to another any  right  or interest in immoveable property  which  the transferee  can  enforce  against the  minor.  The  question whether  the  transaction has resulted in a benefit  to  the minor is immaterial in such cases.     Where  disputes  arose  relating to  succession  to  the estate of a deceased Mahomedan between his 3 sons,  one  of whom was a minor, and other relations, and a deed of settle- ment embodying an agreement in regard to the distribution of the  properties belonging to the estate was executed by  and between  the parties, the eldest son acting as guardian  for and on behalf of the minor son:  Held, that the deed was not binding  on the minor son as his brother was not  his  legal guardian;  as the deed was void it cannot be held  as  valid merely because  it embodied a family arrangement;  and  the deed was void not only qua the minor, but with regard to all the parties including those who were sui juris. 
Marriage--Co-habitation  -presumption of  valid marriage.        Under  Mahomedan  law  if there  was  no  insurmountable obstacle  to a marriage and the man and woman had  cohabited with  each other continously and for a prolonged  period/he presumption  of lawful marriage would arise and it would  be sufficient to establish a lawful marriage between them. - 2015 S.C. [1952] msklawreports     

Popular posts from this blog

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

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)