Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.Sreekumar
  • P.Jayabal Menon
Judges
  • D.Sreedevi
Acts
  • Rule 31, Civil procedure code
  • act, 1890. Section 29
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.Sreekumar
  • P.Jayabal Menon
Judges
  • D.Sreedevi
Acts
  • Rule 31, Civil procedure code
  • act, 1890. Section 29
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, a Hindu father, has two minor children who own immovable properties. Seeking to sell these properties for the welfare of his minor children, the petitioner filed G.O.P. No. 33 of 1993 under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act before the Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The court granted permission to sell, and the sale proceeds were deposited in a fixed deposit in a bank. When the minor son, Vivek Vijayakumar, attained 18 years of age on 14.7.1998, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1269 of 1998 for the return of the fixed deposit receipt in his name. The lower court dismissed this application, holding that according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, the ward attains majority only at 21 years of age.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the age of majority for a minor Hindu ward, whose property was sold with court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is 18 years or 21 years in light of the Indian Majority Act and related statutes.
  2. Whether the guardian’s power over the minor’s property ceases once the minor attains 18 years, allowing the ward to deal with the property independently.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act defines a minor as a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
  • The petitioner, as the natural guardian, sought and obtained court permission to sell the minor’s property for the minor’s welfare.
  • Since the minor son has attained 18 years, the guardian’s rights over the property cease according to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which does not define majority but only minority.
  • The Indian Majority Act’s Section 3 extends minority to 21 years only where a guardian other than a natural guardian has been appointed by the court before the minor attains 18 years; this is inapplicable here.
  • The property deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the son, who is now 18, belongs to him and he is entitled to deal with it independently.
  • The lower court erred in applying Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act to extend minority to 21 years in this context.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Section 3, Indian Majority Act Defines majority as age 21 where a guardian other than a guardian for the suit under Order X Rule 31, CPC, is appointed before 18 years. The court held that this provision does not apply because the petitioner is the natural guardian and no such court-appointed guardian under Order X Rule 31 was involved.
Section 8(2), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Allows natural guardian to apply for court permission to sell minor’s property for the minor’s welfare. Permission was granted under this section to sell the property; the court recognized the minor’s age as 18 for purposes of majority under this Act.
Section 2 and Section 29, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 2 makes provisions of the Act in addition to the Guardians and Wards Act; Section 29 limits powers of guardians appointed or declared by the court. The court noted Section 29 is inapplicable here as the petitioner followed the procedure under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and no court-appointed guardian under Section 29 was involved.
Order X Rule 31, Civil Procedure Code Defines guardianship for suits and its effect on the age of majority under the Indian Majority Act. The court clarified that this rule’s application to extend minority to 21 years does not apply in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the definitions and provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Indian Majority Act, and the Guardians and Wards Act. It emphasized that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act defines a minor as a person under 18 years and does not address the age of majority explicitly. The petitioner, as the natural guardian, had the authority to seek court permission to sell the minor’s property, which was granted. Upon the minor attaining 18 years, the court reasoned that the guardian’s rights over the property cease as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, allowing the ward to deal with the property independently.

The court distinguished the Indian Majority Act’s Section 3, which extends minority to 21 years only when a guardian other than a natural guardian is appointed or declared by the court before the minor attains 18 years, a circumstance not present here. It also noted that the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, specifically Section 29, limiting guardian powers, do not apply as the petitioner was not a court-appointed guardian under that Act.

Therefore, the court concluded that the minor son, having attained 18 years, is entitled to the return of the fixed deposit receipt and can deal with the property independently. The lower court’s order was held to be legally incorrect.

Holding and Implications

The civil revision petition is ALLOWED. The order of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 1269 of 1998 in G.O.P. No. 33 of 1993 is set aside, and the application for return of the fixed deposit receipt is allowed.

This decision directly affects the parties by recognizing the majority of the minor at 18 years for the purposes of dealing with property under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, overruling the lower court’s application of the Indian Majority Act to extend minority to 21 years in this context. No new precedent beyond this factual and statutory interpretation was established.

Show full summary ...

    Vijaya Kumar v. .

    D.Sreedevi, J.:-

    (1) this revision petition is directed against the order on i. A no. 1269 of 1998 in g. O. P. No. 33 of 1993 of the addh district court, Ernakulam.

    (2) petitioner have two minor children viz., Vivek vijayakumar and vandana vijayakumar, Who own immovable properties. Petitioner and his children are hindus. Since the properties of the minor children had to be sold for their welfare, The petitioner filed g. P. O. No. 33 of 1993 before the addl. District court, Ernakulam under section 8 (2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, For permission to sell the property of the minors. The court granted permission and the sale proceeds were deposited in a bank under fixed deposil scheme. Minor vivek vijayakumar is aged 18 years as on 14. 7. 1998, His date of birth being 14. 7. 1980. Hence, The petitioner filed the above i. A. No. 1269 of 1998 for return of the fixed deposit receipt in the name of vivek vijayakumar. The court below dismissed the petitioner, Holding that by virtue of section 3 of the indian majority act, The ward will attain majority only at the age of 21.

    (3) petitioner in this case has applied for permission to sell the property of the minor under section 8 (2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act. Hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 defines 'minor' as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Petitioner, Being the father of the minor is his natural guardian. Natural guardian of a hindu minor has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor. But the guardian can in so case bind the minor by a personal covenant and he shall not, Without the previous permission of the court, Mortgage or sell the property of the minor. Therefore, Petitioner as the natural guardian of the minor applied for permission to sell away the property for the benefit of the minor child. The court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner, Allowing him to sell away the property of the minor. The act does not deal with majority of the minor. Since the minor has attained the age of 18 years, The right of the guardian ceases so far as the property of the minor is concerned. Nowhere in the act the word 'majority' has been used. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minor can deal with the property only if he attains the age of majority and the age of majority has been fixed to be 21 years, Under the indian majority act. It is submitted that section 3 of the indian majority act provides that every minor, Of whose person or property or both a guardian other than a guardian for the suit, Within the meaning of order x, Rule 31, Civil procedure code has been appointed or declared by the court of justice before the minor has attained the age of 18 years, Be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed the age of 21 years and not before.

    (4) the intention of the legislature to be gathered from section 3 of the indian majority act would appear to extend the minority to 21 years where the minor's person or property was in the hands of the guardian at the age of 18. For enforcing the provisions of hindu minority and guardianship act, The provisions of the guardians and wards act, 1890 has to be applied as section 2 of the act provides that the provisions of the act shall be in addition to the guardians and wards act, 1890. Section 29 of the guardians and wards act provides limitation, On powers of guardian of property appointed or declared by the court. That provision is not applicable to the present case, As section 29 relates to the guardian appointed by will or other instrument or guardian declared by the court for getting permission, The petitioner has adopted the procedure in the guardians and wards act. Under the minority and guardianship aet. The power of guardian is mentioned. A person can act as guardian in respect of the property of the minor so long as he continues to be a minor. The son of the petitioner on attaining the age of 18 years is no longer a minor as defined in the act. Therefore, He is free to deal with the property. The money deposited by the father is his property. So he can deal with the property as he is not a minor. The order of the court below is not legal and as such it is liable to be revised.

    (5) in the result, The civil revision petitions, Is allowed and the order on i. A. No. 1269 of 1998 in g. O. P. No. 33 of 1993 of the addl. District court, Ernakulam is set aside and the i. A. Is allowed. Revision allowed

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vijaya Kumar v. .
    (May 26, 1999)