THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CMA.No.770 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Assailing the order dated 02.07.2019 in OP No.10 of 2019 passed
by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the
appellants preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide aforesaid order, the Court below dismissed the application
filed by the appellants under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking permission to appoint the
1st appellant, father of the minors viz., Sara Anurag and Sara Pushkar, as
guardian, to accord permission to the 1st appellant to sell the subject
property i.e. house bearing No.2-2-1107/152 and 153 admeasuring
126.66 square yards situated at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
3. The appellants are wife and husband. They are the natural
parents of the minors i.e. Sara Anurag and Sara Pushkar, who are
studying 10th class and 7th class respectively.
4. According to the 1st appellant, he has purchased the subject
property in the name of his two minor children by paying the entire sale
consideration and got the sale deed registered on 27.08.2016 in their
name. According to the 1st appellant, they are residing in a rented house
situated at Kulsumpura Police Colony, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad and the
2 CMA No.770 of 2019
children are studying in a School near to the said rented house.
According to the appellants, for the convenience of their minor children,
they are residing in the said rental house.
5. The appellants further submit that the subject property is
situated in New Nallakunta and that they are expecting more sale
consideration and by disposing of the subject property, they are intending
to purchase a property which is near to the School of their children.
According to them, they would spend the entire sale consideration to be
received from the sale of the subject property to purchase a new property
in the name of the minors, close to the School and that they are ready to
add some more money for purchase of new house.
6. The appellants would contend that a paper publication was
taken in local newspaper against the respondents/all concerned, but no
objections were received. During trial before the Court below, the
appellants themselves examined as PWs.1 and 2, the maternal grand
parents of the children as PWs.3 and 4 and one Mr. Shivraj, an
independent witness, as PW.5.
7. On consideration of the entire record including the evidence
both oral and documentary, the Court below dismissed the Guardian O.P.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants preferred the
present appeal under Section 47 of the Act.
8. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the
3 CMA No.770 of 2019
9. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the
appellants would like to purchase a property which is near to the School
of their children for the purpose of their convenience and welfare. They
are expecting an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- towards the sale consideration
from out of the sale of the subject property and they are proposing to
purchase a new house in the name of the minor children in the Jiyaguda
locality for the same amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. Learned counsel would
further submit that appellant No.1, father of the minor children, is ready
to spend one more lakh for the purpose of purchasing the new property.
He would further contend that he has examined 5 witnesses to prove the
10. According to the learned counsel, the Court below without
considering the said aspects and also the contentions of the appellants
about purchasing of new property in the name of the minors by adding
one more lakh extra towards the consideration for purchase of the
property in Jiyaguda area, dismissed the OP without assigning proper
reasons. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the appellants
prayed for allowing the appeal.
11. On perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that the
1st appellant, father of the minor children, purchased the subject property
under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 27.08.2016. The minor children
i.e. Sara Anuraj and Sara Pushkar have been studying 10th class and 7th
class, respectively, in a School situated in Jiyaguda area. According to
the appellants, they are now residing in a rented house in Kulsumpura
4 CMA No.770 of 2019
Police Colony, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad and that they would like to purchase
a property in the locality near to the School for the welfare and advantage
of the children by selling the subject property. Except contending the
distance and welfare of the children, the appellants did not explain any
other reason. Admittedly, the appellants did not file the original of
Ex.A-1 sale deed in the Court below.
12. As discussed above, the appellants’ claim of purchase of new
property is only a topographical ground and there is no other ground at
all. The appellants did not mention any bonafide reason to sell away the
minors property. Admittedly, Master Anurag is studying 10th class and
he is aged about 16 years and Master Pushkar is studying in 7th class and
is aged about 13 years.
13. It is not in dispute that the subject property is in the name of
minors and if the said property is to be sold, it should be only for the
purpose of welfare of the children and not for any other purpose. In the
present case, the appellants did not explain any satisfactory reasons and
there is no tangible evidence to accept the contentions of the appellants
that they are intending to purchase the property in Jiyaguda locality for
the purpose of welfare of the children. There is no material on record to
satisfy the legal requirement to consider that the sale would be for the
benefit of the minors.
14. On the analysis of entire evidence including the depositions of
PWs.3 to 5, there is no other tangible evidence in support of the
contention of the appellants. It is settled principle of law that the Court
5 CMA No.770 of 2019
has to consider the welfare of the minor children for the purpose of
granting permission to sell the property belongs to the minors. Whereas
in the present case, there is no evidence much less tangible evidence to
show that the appellants, though the parents of the minor children, wants
to dispose of the said property for the welfare of the minor children. The
Court below vide impugned order, has rightly rejected the permission
sought by the appellants to sell the property of the minors. We are
satisfied with the reasons given by the Court below in the impugned
15. In view of the above discussion, there is no circumstance that
warrants interference with the order passed by the Court below. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
January 24, 2020.