T.K. SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 20.08.2013 made in H.M.G.O.P.No.22 OF 2013. By the said order, which is challenged in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the learned trial judge has dismissed the petition filed under section 8(2)(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking permission of the court to develop the property, in which a minor also does have a substantial interest.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:

(3.) The learned Judge of the lower court before whom evidence was led in the form of testimonies of PWS.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P10, declined the permission sought for and passed the impugned order dated 20.08.2013. The learned trial judge, chose to decline permission sought for based on his reasoning that no consideration had been mentioned in the petition for the sale deeds to be made in respect of the undivided share to the developer and that without any specific prayer and with a vague prayer, the permission had been sought for. As against the said order dismissing the HMGOP, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed on various grounds set out in the grounds of appeal.