G P VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(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 Additional District Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) Petitioner has 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. O.P. No. 33 of 1993 before the Additional 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 deposit 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 petition, 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 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 no 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, the 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 O. XXXII C.P.C., 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. The intention of the legislature to be gathered from Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act would appear to be 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 Act, 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 if he is not a minor. The order of the Court below is not legal and as such it is liable to be revised.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order on I. A. No. 1269 of 1998 in G.O.P. No. 33 of 1993 of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam is set aside and the IA is allowed.Revision allowed.