Poopandi vs Jeyaram — 8/2026
Case under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Section 8(6). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 02nd April 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNDG010060192025
e-Filing Number
17-12-2025
Filing Number
2540/2025
Filing Date
17-Dec-2025
Registration No
8/2026
Registration Date
28-Jan-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Dindugul
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 23-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Poopandi
Adv. Manikandan Dharmaraj
Respondent(s)
-
1.Jeyaram
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The court permitted the father (petitioner Poopandi), as natural guardian, to sell his minor daughter Pandimeena's 1/3 share of inherited property under Section 8(2)(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, finding justifiable necessity to fund her education and welfare. However, rather than the agreed private sale to the proposed purchaser for Rs. 45 lakhs, the court mandated a public auction conducted by an Advocate Commissioner to ensure the best price for the minor's interest, with proceeds deposited in a fixed deposit in her name until majority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Issue of Service
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 8/2026
The court permitted the father (petitioner Poopandi), as natural guardian, to sell his minor daughter Pandimeena's 1/3 share of inherited property under Section 8(2)(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, finding justifiable necessity to fund her education and welfare. However, rather than the agreed private sale to the proposed purchaser for Rs. 45 lakhs, the court mandated a public auction conducted by an Advocate Commissioner to ensure the best price for the minor's interest, with proceeds deposited in a fixed deposit in her name until majority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts