AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 83

6.9. Conflict of decisions as to hereditary trusteeship.-

The Madras1 and the Patna2 decisions take a restricted view of the matter. This view, however, has been dissented from in Andhra Pradesh in a Full Bench decision,3 which holds that the word "property" in section 7 is comprehensive enough to take in all types of proprietary rights. The term "property" is used in a generic sense. It has a wide connotation and is not restricted to a kind of property in which the minor has a beneficial enjoyment. The section, according to the Andhra Pradesh view, contemplates the appointment of guardians to minors in regard to all types of property.

The hereditary trusteeship of a religious in situation therefore constitutes "property" within the ambit of the section, according to the Andhra Pradesh view, and a Court is competent to appoint a guardian to a minor in respect of trust properties of which the minor happens to be a trustee. The Andhra Pradesh judgment points out that the principle that the office of hereditary trusteeship follows the line of succession has been embedded in Hindu law and judicially recognised. A reasonable interpretation has to be given to section 7, so as to harmonise it with the concepts of Hindu law.

1. (a) Alagappa v. Mangulhai, ILR 40 Mad 672;

(b) Venkatachalapathi v. Thirugnana, 33 mij 297;

(c) Varadachariar v. Raja Ranthrishnan, AIR 1923 Mad 497.

2. Kitty v. Bahuria, AIR 1933 Pat 527.

3. K. Sastrulu v. M. Venkatasu'ara Rao, AIR 1959 AP 232 (FB).



The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Certain Provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys