H.M. MAHESH Vs. B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above original petition was filed Under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to permit the petitioner, father of the minors, Miss Usha Lakshmi and Miss Aruna, to offer the vacant lands admeasuring approximately 1 1/2 grounds situate of No. 24, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Madras, beinging to the minors as collateral security by way of equitable mortgage to Indian Bank, Saligramam Branch, Madras, against the additional working capital limit of Rs. 20 lakhs sanctioned by the said Bank and for other consequential orders.

(2.) On 24.1.1992, the Original Side of this Court placed the entire papers before me for consideration and orders as to numbering the original petition. According to the office note, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide and that petition Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 has got to be filed only before the City Civil Court and that this Court need not entertain this petition. The office has also placed before me the order dated 14.7.1972 made in Diary No. 4904/72 passed by Mr. Justice Gokulakrishnan (as he then was), while placing the maintainability note. In this connection, the office has also invited my attention to the earlier Full Bench decision of our High Court taking a contrary view on the applicability Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Chartered High Courts which are governed by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. That decision is reported in V. Ramamirtham v. Rama Film Service, 1951 II MLJ 121.

(3.) Accordingly Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel advanced arguments on the question of maintainability and after hearing his arguments I directed the office to number the original petition and post the same for orders, after taking the view that the original petition is maintainable in this Court. On the arguments advanced by Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate, I pass the following order on the question of maintainability of such petition on the file of the Original Side of this Court. The Office note dated 24.1.1992 is reproduced hereunder :-