ISHAQUE Vs. CHERUVATHODI AYISHABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the father of Mohammed Nizam, a minor born on 25.5.2005, is the order passed by the District Judge, Kozhikode dismissing O.P. No. 286/2006 filed by the appellant for permission of the court to dispose of the property scheduled to the original petition in which minor Mohammed Nizam has undivided 1/12th interest. The appellant produced Ext. A5 agreement for sale under which property in question - 5 cents of land with pathway frontage together with a residential building, which is described as incompletely constructed - for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The learned District Judge would, on evaluation of the materials available in the case, come to the conclusion that the consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- is too low when the market value of the property is taken into account. The learned Judge has not in the impugned order given any indication as to what according to him is the probable market value at the time when Ext. A5 was entered into. We have reappraised the evidence. We have heard the submissions made by Shri. A. Balagopalan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. K. Saneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. We keep in mind our own impressions regarding the market value of the property in Nallalam Village on the basis of various judgments of this Court in land acquisition cases and find that the market value of the property in respect of which permission is sought should be at least Rs. 5 lakhs as against the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- shown in Ext. A5. As there is no other impediments against granting the permission sought for, since the evidence will justify the conclusion that the proposed sale will be to the advantage of the minor and will accomplish the necessities of the minor also, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order and allow the O.P. filed by the petitioner. In fact, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent was that if this Court protects the interests of the minor adequately in the matter there will not be serious objection in the M.F.A. being allowed. The result of the above discussions, therefore, is as follows: