Vincent v. Rose
Case brief
What is this about?
This appeal dismissed an application for appointing the grandfather as minor's property guardian, which was allowed on conditions including bond execution and court permission for property alienation to ensure the minor's welfare.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; appellant appointed guardian of minor's properties on conditions including bond execution, annual accounts, and prior court permission for alienation.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MFA.No.4 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN GOP 125/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -IV, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VINCENT,AGED 72 YEARS S/O.PORINCHU,PUNNAMPARAMBIL UKKEN HOUSE,EDAKKULAM DESOM,POOMANGALAM VILLAGE,MUKUDANDAPURAM TALUK, EDAKKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680688.
BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant should be appointed as guardian of the minor's property
Whether sale or disposal of minor's property without prior court permission is permissible
Whether the impugned order dismissing the petition should be set aside
Parties & counsel
- appellant
VINCENT
- respondent
ROSE
- respondent
SEBIN
- respondent
DANU MARIYA JOSEPH
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court