SUKHBIR Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Faridabad, granting ad-interim injunction to the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts that led to the filing of this revision petition, may be stated as follows :-

(3.) There is no dispute of the fact that Aidal Chand is the owner of 1/4th share and Net Ram leased out the specific 1/4th share in the entire family property to defendants Nos. 1 to 3. There cannot be any dispute of the fact that Net Ram is not the legal guardian of the minor son and he has no right to act on behalf of the minor in the presence of the natural guardian i.e. the mother who is plaintiff No. 2. He never sought to be appointed as guardian of the minor on the ground of remarriage of the plaintiff No. 2. Therefore, the lease in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by defendant No. 4 is not valid. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the interest of plaintiff No. 2 Maya is adverse to the minor. Therefore, she cannot act as a guardian of plaintiff No. 1. According to him, earlier she filed a suit claiming a share in the property left by Aidal Chand. If she asserts her legal right, it cannot be said that the assertion of the legal right is adverse to the interest of the minor. There is no dispute of the fact that Aidal Chand died after Hindu Succession Act. Under Section 8 read with the Schedule, both the widow and the minor son inherit the share of Aidal Chand. Therefore, Maya widow of Aidal Chand has got a statutory right to inherit the property. The assertion of that statutory right cannot be taken as adverse to the interest of the minor. That suit came to be filed when the property got mutated in favour of the minor to the detriment the rights of Maya widow of Aidal Chand. I do not, therefore, find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel.