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

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

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

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