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
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
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
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts