Allowed

Meena v. Deolekar v Rajesh K. Deolekar

Bombay HC21 Jan 2010GP/74/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a guardianship petition, the Court allowed the petitioner's request to develop property where the respondent holds a 1/12th share. The Court noted the respondent is mentally retarded and approved a corrected agreement executed on his behalf, directing deposit of his share's equivalent value before the transaction.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; agreement marked 'X' substituted for Exhibit 'E'; office directed to invest security deposit;

2.Petition was accepted on 2nd December, 2009. This Court by order dated 17th December, 2009 had found that there were several discrepancies in the agreement which was annexed at Exhibit 'D', which is an agreement dated 15th April, 2009 executed by the co- sharer.

3.The learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that necessary correction be made in the agreement which is to be executed on behalf of the person, who is an unsound mind i.e. the Respondent herein.

4.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has tendered a copy of an agreement and submits that in this agreement necessary corrections have been made and the suggestions made by this Court have been incorporated. The said agreement is taken on record and marked 'X' for the purpose of identification. The said agreement is, therefore, substituted in place of agreement which is annexed at Exhibit 'E'.

Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospital in which it is specifically stated that the Respondent is mentally retarded. The Petitioner has filed this petition since she wants to develop the property which is described in the petition and in which the Respondent has 1/12th share and, therefore, it was necessary to obtain permission of this Court before developing the said property. All other shareholders in the property have given their no objection to develop the property. The said consent affidavits are annexed to this petition. Since directions given by this Court have been complied by the Petitioner and she has also agreed and undertaken to deposit an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in this Court which is the amount equivalent to 1/12th share of the Respondent as per Exhibit 'F' of the valuation report, the office is directed to invest this amount which is deposited in

this Court. Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a),(b), and (c). The Petitioner to file an undertaking in this Court within two weeks from today and the agreement executed on behalf of the Respondent would be compared with the draft agreement which is tendered in this Court and the amount shall be deposited in this Court within four weeks after execution of the agreement.

Meena v. Deolekar v Rajesh K. Deolekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena v. Deolekar v Rajesh K. Deolekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rikabdas a. Oswal Vs Kolhapur Taraju Co-Op. Hsg.Soc. and Ors.

Vanijaya Shase Traders Pvt.Ltd. Vs Smt. Rajkumari R. Goenka and Ors.

Sushilabai N. Rungta. Vs R.M.Kedia and Ors.

Basavraj Mallesha Bagale Vs the Minister of Marketing

Columbia Tristar Films of India Ltd. Vs S.R. Enterprises

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Kalavapalli S. Naidu S/O K. Narsappa Naidu and Anr.