NAIZY NEEMA Vs. MARY TAURO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the mother of a minor child, by name, Alex Tauro, born on 03.11.2000. The father of the minor child expired on 31.05.2004. The appellant/mother is the legal guardian of the minor child. An item of property was purchased by the father and mother of the minor child in their joint names. Both of them had half rights each in that property. After the death of the father of the minor child on 31.05.2004, the minor along with his mother became entitled to the rights of the deceased father in the property. The mother wanted the said property to be disposed of. According to her, retention of this property was difficult and hence she took the decision to sell her as well as the minor's rights. There was an offer to purchase the property for an amount of Rs.3,90,000/-. The mother of the minor child asserted that she had already purchased another item of property for residence along with the minor. In these circumstances, she wanted court's permission to dispose of the fractional rights of the minor in the property.

(2.) Before the court below, the mother of the child filed a proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The court below by the impugned order permitted the appellant/mother to dispose of the property. We extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the District Court.

(3.) The appellant has come before this Court aggrieved by that part of the impugned order, which obliges her to convey 1/4th share in the property and the building standing in her name. According to the learned counsel for the appellant such a condition was totally unnecessary. The appellant is willing to deposit the share of the minor in Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank such that the principal amount along with interest can be released to the minor on attainment of majority. The direction to convey 1/4th share in a different property belonging to the appellant to the name of the minor is unnecessary and would involve needless and avoidable expenses. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order in so far as it imposes the said condition (underlined in the operative portion above) may be vacated.