Allowed

Tushar S. Joag v. Master Kashyap T. Joag

Bombay HC22 Mar 2013MP/2/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition allowed the biological father of a minor child to sell a jointly owned industrial gala and use proceeds to purchase a row-house, provided the minor is named as a nominee and the nomination is not altered, ruling the transaction serves the child's interest.

What did the court decide?

Sale of the industrial gala was allowed subject to the condition that the nomination made by the petitioner and his wife in the purchased row-house shall not be altered.

Tushar S. Joag Vs Master Kashyap T. Joag — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2013)

MPT.2/2012(MNB)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISC. PETITION NO. 2 OF 2012

¶6

Master Kashyap Tushar Joag ...Minor child Tushar Shririshna Joag ...Petitioner Vs. Master Kashyap Tushar Joag ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner None for the Respondent

¶8

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 22^ND MARCH, 2013

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The petitioner is the biological father of the minor child Master Kashyap Tushar Joag who is respondent in the petition. The petitioner owns an industrial gala along with the minor child. The petitioner has sought to sell the industrial gala and utilise the proceeds of the industrial gala in purchase of a row-house being row house No.1 in Manavasthal Co-operative Housing Society, Gokuldam, Goregaon(E), Bombay-400 063.

¶11

The petitioner has paid part purchase price and obtained the possession letter on 3^rd November, 2011. The document has been executed in favour of the petitioner and his wife.

¶12

MPT.2/2012(MNB)

¶13

¶14

The petitioner claims that because he has taken a loan from HDFC Bank, he has not been allowed to take row-house in the name of the minor child. Hence the petitioner has nominated the respondent minor child as also another minor child of the petitioner who are his son and daughter respectively in the said row-house.

¶15

Since the petitioner is the biological father and the co-owner is the biological mother of the minor child the transaction is not seen to be against the interest of the minor child. Upon seeing the nomination made by the petitioner as well as his wife the transaction is seen to be in the interest of the child provided the nomination is not altered.

¶16

Hence the sale effected by the petitioner is allowed subject to the condition that the nomination made by the petitioner and his wife shall not be altered.

¶17

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶18

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Tushar S. Joag v. Master Kashyap T. Joag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar S. Joag v. Master Kashyap T. Joag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. v. Harindranath Vs Sujata Harindranath and Anr.

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. Vs Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge and Anr.

Mrudula Kishore and Ors. Vs Payal Malhotra and Ors.

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve Vs Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve and Anr.

Mr. Raj Katra Vs Mrs. Sunita Raj Katra

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah Vs Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah