LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More



Kiran Kumar's Expert Profile

Queries Replied : 3748

+ View Full Profile



I am a lawyer at present practising in Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.  Originally I belong to Jalandhar and I have been dealing with different nature of cases before Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh.  

At present I am dealing with Criminal Matters, Civil Matters and Rent Matters.  I have been dealing with Writ matters also. 

email: harry.law@hotmail.com  

Cell No. 09814303538

(Consultation Service through e-mail and phone is not available as free service)



    What kinds of questions I can and can't answer?
    Criminal Law, Civil Law including Rent matters and Service Law related matters are being dealt by me. I can not answer any tax related legal issue.

    My area of expertise
    Criminal Law, Civil Law, Rent Matters and Service Law

    My experience in the area (years):
    Eight years

    Organizations I belong to:
    I am a lawyer in an independent capacity, having work at Superme Court of India and Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and some of the work also in District Courts Jalandhar (Punjab)

    Publications or writing which has appeared :


    Educational credentials:
    in addition to LL.B i have also done Post Grad. Diploma in Cyber Laws

    Award & Honors:


  • DR SURESHA G says : Property Issue
    Dear Sirs I have a quiery . I will appreciate if the club members give their valuable opinion . My meternal Grand father is Late H Sanna Somappa Died in March 1975 My Grand Mother is Late Gangamma Died in June 1997 They have 10 childrens 1.H S Hanumanthappa -Died in March 1985 at the age of 52 years -Married 1955 2. H S Parvathamma Alive - with 3 Childrens age 72 years as of 2015-Married 1956 3. H S Revanasiddappa Died in 2004 at the age of 62 years - 3 Childrens (1 Expired ) -Married in 1966 4. H S Nagarajappa Died in 1996 at the age of 51 years - 5 Childrens Married in 1966 5.H S Jayamma Died in 2012 at the age of 66 years -5 Childrens (1 expired ) Married in 1959 6 H S Heggappa Died in 2006 at the age of 59 years -5 Childrens Married in 1968 7. H S Sharadamma Died in 2009 at the age of 60 years -4 Childrens Married in 1966 8. H S Bharamakka Alive age 64 years -3 Childrens Married in 1966 9. H S Rathnamma Alive age 63 years -2 Childrens Married in 1970 10 H S Gangamalamma Alive age 61 years -4 Childrens Married in 1975 Late H Sanna Somappa had property as follows 1.56 Acres of Irrigated land in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of 56 Crores as of 2015 property value 2. Khana Koppalu in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of one Crores as of 2015 property value 3. Houses in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of 50 lakhs as of 2015 property value The above three properties are distributed only among 4 male childrens 1,3,4 and 6 in 1980 ignoring the female childrens The legal heirs of 1,3,4 and 6 sold few properties The quiery is Is there any chance of getting shares for 2,5,7,8,9 and 10 Daughters of Late sanna Somappa (The alive and the legal heirs of deceased) If so could you please advise how to approach Awaiting the response from the member friends Dr Suresha s/o Late H S Sharadamma .(7th legal heir of Late Sanna Somappa)

  • DR SURESHA G says : Property Issue
    Dear Sirs I have a quiery . I will appreciate if the club members give their valuable opinion . My meternal Grand father is Late H Sanna Somappa Died in March 1975 My Grand Mother is Late Gangamma Died in June 1997 They have 10 childrens 1.H S Hanumanthappa -Died in March 1985 at the age of 52 years -Married 1955 2. H S Parvathamma Alive - with 3 Childrens age 72 years as of 2015-Married 1956 3. H S Revanasiddappa Died in 2004 at the age of 62 years - 3 Childrens (1 Expired ) -Married in 1966 4. H S Nagarajappa Died in 1996 at the age of 51 years - 5 Childrens Married in 1966 5.H S Jayamma Died in 2012 at the age of 66 years -5 Childrens (1 expired ) Married in 1959 6 H S Heggappa Died in 2006 at the age of 59 years -5 Childrens Married in 1968 7. H S Sharadamma Died in 2009 at the age of 60 years -4 Childrens Married in 1966 8. H S Bharamakka Alive age 64 years -3 Childrens Married in 1966 9. H S Rathnamma Alive age 63 years -2 Childrens Married in 1970 10 H S Gangamalamma Alive age 61 years -4 Childrens Married in 1975 Late H Sanna Somappa had property as follows 1.56 Acres of Irrigated land in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of 56 Crores as of 2015 property value 2. Khana Koppalu in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of one Crores as of 2015 property value 3. Houses in Hale Kunduvada Davanagere City Carporation . Which is worth of 50 lakhs as of 2015 property value The above three properties are distributed only among 4 male childrens 1,3,4 and 6 in 1980 ignoring the female childrens The legal heirs of 1,3,4 and 6 sold few properties The quiery is Is there any chance of getting shares for 2,5,7,8,9 and 10 Daughters of Late sanna Somappa (The alive and the legal heirs of deceased) If so could you please advise how to approach Awaiting the response from the member friends Dr Suresha s/o Late H S Sharadamma .(7th legal heir of Late Sanna Somappa)

  • sigatapu naga seshu kiran kuma says : ALIENATION OF MINORS PROPERTY BY GUARDIAN
    Member strength is 281,027 and growing……….. ALIENATION OF MINOR’S PROPERTY BY GURDIAN Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 SEC.8. Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,— Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890 SEC. 29. Limitation of powers of guardian of property appointed or declared by the court Where a person other than a Collector, or than a guardian appointed by will or other instrument, has been appointed or declared by the court to be guardian of the property of a ward, he shall not without the previous permission of the court, (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor or (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of his ward, or (b) Lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. (b) lease any part of that property for a term exceeding five years or for any term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the ward will cease to be a minor. SEC.8.(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. SEC.30. Voidability of transfers made in contravention of section 28 or section 29 A disposal of immovable property by a guardian in contravention of either of the two last foregoing sections is voidable at the instance of any other person affected thereby. Sec.8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is the replica of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 It is manifest that Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 29 of the 1890 Act are in pari materia with Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1956 Act. Similarly, Section 30 of 1890 Act is identical in terms (except for a marginal inconsequential change) with Section 8(3) of the 1956 Act. The language of these provisions bear such (similarity) as to leave no manner of doubt that the framers merely lifted the relevant provisions from the earlier 1890 Act to place them in Section 8 of the 1956 Act The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Case of Surta Singh Vs. Pritam Singh : AIR1983P& H114 held: “It is common ground that before the enactment of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in 1956, the Guardianship and Wards Act of 1890 held the field and was equally applicable to the Hindu minors as well. Even after the latter enactment the former Act still holds sway and as would appear hereinafter the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is in a way supplemental to the earlier statute” SEC. 6 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 defines Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.- The natural guardians of a Hindu, minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are- (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl-the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl-the husband; Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section- (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi) Explanation.- In this section, the expressions 'father' and 'mother' do not include a step-father and a step-mother.  The Natural Guardian/Guardian has no power to mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, and exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor whether it is for the benefit of the minor or otherwise both under the provisions of Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956, except with the permission of the court.  If the Natural Guardian/ Guardian of a minor has transferred the property in contravention of Sec. 8 (1) and (2) of Hindu Minority or in contravention of Sec.29 of Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890, the same is voidable at the option of a minor under Sed. 8(3) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 and Sec. 30 of Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890 as the case may be. It is relevant to discuss about the voidable contract? The essence of a voidable contract has been authoritatively enunciated in Anson's celebrated work on the law of Contract as under :-- 01. 'A voidable contract, however, is a contract which one of the parties may rescind or affirm at his option. If he chooses to affirm the contract, or if he fails to exercise his right to rescind within a reasonable time so that the position of the parties has in the meantime, become altered, he may find himself bound by it; otherwise he is entitled to repudiate his liability. Nevertheless the contract is not a nullity from the beginning. Until it is rescinded, it is valid and binding.' Again in this particular context a contract voidable at the instance of the minor the rule is enunciated in the following terms:-- 02. 'Where an infant acquires an interest in a permanent property to which obligations attach, or enters into a contract involving continuous rights and duties, benefits and liabilities, and takes some benefit under the contract, he will be bound, unless he expressly disclaims the contract during infancy or within a reasonable time of attaining his majority.'  It is, therefore, well-settled that a transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian of a Hindu minor far from being void or being a nullity is in fact one which fully binds the other party. The minor can always avail the benefit thereof and after ratifying or accepting the same enforce the contract. Such a transaction is perfectly valid until duly avoided by the minor. Not only that precedent is unanimous that he can avoid the same only by restoration of any benefits received under such a transfer and if he does not choose to do so, the Court would refuse to avoid such a transfer. 01. Distinguishion between A. Sale of minor’s share in the Joint Hindu Family property by Kartha and B. Sale of property stands in the name of Minor by the Guardian. 1. Under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956: A. For the purpose of sale of share of minor in the Joint Hindu Family by the Kartha the previous permission of the Court for the sale of property is not required as per the provisions of Sec.12 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956. ( This is applicable to Hindus Only) --- Reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Narayana Bal Vs Sridhar Suthar – AIR 1996 SC 2371 B. But for sale of property of minor which stands in his name shall not be sold by the guardian for whatever purpose without the previous sanction of the Court. 2. Under Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890: There is no such distinguishion in the Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890 as the concept of Joint Hindu Family is not applicable religions other than Hindus. 02. Distinquishion between A. Sale of minors property by De Jure Guardians and B. De facto Guardians:  Section 11 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 specifically prohibits the transactions by the Defacto Guardians on behalf of minors which states that “De facto guardian not to deal with the minor's property.--After the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor”  But there is no similar provision in Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890 A. Dejure guardian means legal guardian and the person who is empowered to deal with the property of the minor under the Law. Dejure Guardian includes the Natural Guardian, Testamentary Guardian and Guardian appointed by court. B. When a minor has no legal guardian, usually a close relative takes care of him and his property. Such a person is known as de facto guardian, who is not a lawful guardian. However, a de facto guardian shall be also the de facto manager of the minor’s property. He may apply for legal guardianship, in a court under the Guardian and Wards Act. C. If the Dejure Guardians entered into a contract on behalf of minors property without court permission it is voidable at the option of the minors Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956 and Sec. 29 and 30 of Guardianship and Wards Act. 1890. D. Whereas Defacto Guardians entered into a contract on minors property without court permission and they are totally void. E. When under a voidable contract, the minor after attaining majority can file a suit for repudiation of contract entered by a dejure guardian(without permission of the court) claiming that the said transaction is not entered for the benefit of the minor. F. When under the void contract, the minor need not file suit for repudiation of contract and straight away he can claim back the property by filing the suit against the transferee. G. When the contract on behalf of minor is effected by dejure Guardian(without permission of the court), Sec. 60 of the Limitation act is applicable and he can repudiate the contract by filing a suit against the transferee, claiming that the said transaction is not entered for the benefit of minor H. When the contract on behalf of minor is effected by defacto Guardian Section 65 of the Limitation act is applicable and he need not file a suit for repudiation of contract, he can claim back the property by filing the suit against the transferee. I. When the contract on behalf of minor is effected by dejure Guardian(without permission of the court) the limitation for filing the suit is 3 years from the date of attaining majority under Sec. 60 of Limitation Act. J. When the contract on behalf of minor is effected by defacto Guardian the limitation for filing the suit is not 3 years after attaining majority but 3 years after attaining majority or 12 years from date of prescriptive possession whichever occurs later under Art. 65 of Limitation Act. K. Legal position on Point J If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it was void, he had two options to file a suit to get the property purportedly conveyed there under. He could either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either sue within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial court. Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006 Appeal (civil) 2412 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11/2003) L. When a person enter in to possession of a land under void or voidable transaction, his possession becomes adverse from the date he comes in possession- SC-CLJ-2008-205 The above views are my personal Sri T. Arjuna Rao Senior Manager(Law) Legal Department, Head Office Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Hyderabad

  • kanchan gore says : cyber crime!
    i know a lady who has created obscene video clips with one of my dear friend's husband.can a FIR be done in the lady's name.because its a crime to create such matter.whats the cyber crime law available in this case? my friend's dv case and divorce case is already on.but meanwhile can the lady involved be booked under cyber crime law? please answer sir!

  • varun says :
    Unfaithful girlfriend Sir, I saw your profile on www.lawyerclubindia.com I have an Issue, I would be greatfull if you can suggest me some thing. Issue: I had a girlfriend. We were planning to get married this year. Our relationship was very deep and intimate. Suddenly from last 1 month or so she changed her mind and started refusing to marry giving feeble reasons. I tried to convince her but she and his younger brother are threatening to lodge a false complain against me that I have been stalking and harassing her mentally. We were having sexual relation and it was her who initiated. My query: If she lodges a false complains, to counter it, can I lodge a complaint against her for physically exploiting me by promising to marry me?? I read many times in the newspaper where woman are lodging complaint against men on the above bases, under the charges of rape. Can it be applicable vies- versa? I no longer wish to marry her. I have some of her photographs, 100s of SMS and some videos by which I can prove that we were having very close relations. Thanking you. Varun Sharma Email: varun_sharma3@rediffmail.com Cell : 9429173460

Comment Please

  

Other LCI Experts


Rajendra K Goyal
Queries Replied : 53581

Raj Kumar Makkad
Queries Replied : 44370

Devajyoti Barman
Queries Replied : 34799


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query