2017(4) Kar. L.J. 366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
BASAVANTHAPPA AND OTHERS
VERSES
BASAVANNEPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.RS AND OTHERS
📌HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956, Section 8- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 29 – Embargo on transferring minor’s interest Requirement of Court’s permission Held, the property here means definite property of minor Not include indefinite fluctuating interest of minor in joint property – On merits 2nd plaintiff, like 1st plaintiff has undivided interest Therefore, not definite – If 1st plaintiff sold away her share as well as her daughter’s share It cannot be said to be illegal Opposed to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority Act and Section 29 of the Guardians Act. (para 32)
📌HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, Section 22 Limitation Act, 1963, Article 97 Suit for relief of declaration, injunction – Exercise of preferential right-Pre-emption Limitation – Suit instituted on 6-1-1995 Plaint amended on 4-12-2001 to plead with respect to right of pre-emption Seek additional relief of direction to defendants, to sell property to them – Admittedly, plaintiffs could have exercised right available under Section Pavailable 22 of the Succession Act – But according to Article 97, the limitation period is one year from date of purchaser taking physical possession of property sold Or, from date of registration of sale deed, if subject-matter of sale does not admit of physical possession Therefore, from date of sale deed i.e., 15-6-1994 within one year, they could have exercised right of pre-emption While filing suit on 6-1-1995 this right was very much available, but relief was not ught So, by the time application was made 4-12-2001 seeking amendment of plaint, this relief was time barred.