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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- 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.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS