SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sara Ashok And Another vs All Concerned on 24 January, 2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

AND

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
MSR,J KL,J
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

appellants.

MSR,J KL,J
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

said contentions.

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
MSR,J KL,J
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
MSR,J KL,J
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

order.

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

stand closed.

_
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

_
K.LAKSHMAN, J

January 24, 2020.

KTL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation