Vaibhavi Pravin Talpelwar thr. Sonali Pravin Talpelwar vs None — 187/2024

Case under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Section 8. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHYA010022882024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

18-10-2024

Filing Number

1416/2024

Filing Date

19-10-2024

Registration No

187/2024

Registration Date

22-10-2024

Court

District and Session Court , Yavatmal

Judge

24-Adhoc District Judge-1 and A.S.J., Yavatmal

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT Section 8

Petitioner(s)

Vaibhavi Pravin Talpelwar thr. Sonali Pravin Talpelwar

Adv. ZAMAD SANDESH SURESHCHAND

Respondent(s)

None

Hearing History

Judge: 24-Adhoc District Judge-1 and A.S.J., Yavatmal

13-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Arguments

02-03-2026

Arguments

27-02-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal rejected the mother's application seeking permission to sell her minor daughter's undivided interest in agricultural land. The court held that since the minor had only an undivided share in joint family property (not separate/absolute property), Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act do not apply, and court permission was unnecessary. Additionally, the applicants failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim that the sale was necessary for the minor's education. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

31-10-2025
Evidence
09-01-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal rejected the mother's application seeking permission to sell her minor daughter's undivided interest in agricultural land. The court held that since the minor had only an undivided share in joint family property (not separate/absolute property), Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act do not apply, and court permission was unnecessary. Additionally, the applicants failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim that the sale was necessary for the minor's education. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Court , Yavatmal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case