MSK Publications -MSK Law Reports 2015 – Ready Reckoner

the finger print expert had taken V1, V2, V3 and V6 from the trunk box and had taken photographs of them.  Of this, the chance finger print, V6, did not reveal  sufficient number of clear ridge for comparison  and therefore, it was excluded from comparison.- The finger print expert (P.W.23), lifted the chance finger prints, viz., V1, V2, V3 and V6 from an iron trunk box and the chance finger prints marked as V4 and V5 on the wooden door.  He had lifted these finger prints on 18.12.2002 by visiting the scene of occurrence at the request of the investigating officer, P.W.24.  The chance finger prints did not tally with the finger prints of P.W.1, son of the deceased, on comparison.  Therefore, that was negatived.  As stated earlier, the finger print expert had taken V1, V2, V3 and V6 from the trunk box and had taken photographs of them.  Of this, the chance finger print, V6, did not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge for comparison and ther...

Admittedly, the appellant is a purchaser of the property from the 1st respondent who was a minor at that time and the property was sold through his mother as guardian.  The question raised in this case is,  whether the sale is valid ? In Section 362, the legal guardian of the property of a minor has no power to sell the immovable property of the minor except in the cases  [1] where he can obtain double its value;  [2] where the minor has no other property and the sale is necessary for his maintenance;  [3] where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them;  [4] where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them;  [5] where the expenses exceed the income of the property;  [6] where the property is falling into decay;  [7] when the property has been usurped, and the guardian has reason to fear that there is no chance of fair restitution. In Mumammadan law by Syed Ameer Ali [Vol .2] also ...