KHADEEJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before the District Court is the appellant before us. She is aggrieved by the rejection of her prayer and dismissal of her application filed under S. 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act. She is the mother of a minor child (daughter) born on 27/05/1996. Plaint A schedule property measuring 4. 5 ares stands in the name of the minor daughter of the appellant / petitioner. She has acquired the same under a settlement deed executed by her father, that is the husband of the appellant / petitioner. The minor child has half rights over 2. 2 ares of land described in the plaint B schedule property. The appellant / petitioner came to Court with a prayer that she may be appointed as guardian and permitted to dispose of the said items of property belonging to the minor. She asserts that the properties are in a hilly area and there is no proper facility for watering. In the interests of the minor child, her interest in the properties had to be disposed of and another property has to be purchased in the name of the minor. The two properties in question are worth Rs. 5,40,000/- and Rs. 2,44,800/- respectively A higher value is offered by PW 2, one Nazar who had entered into Ext. A6 agreement for purchase of that property. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the requisite permission may be granted to the appellant as guardian of the minor to dispose of the minor's rights over the plaint A and B schedule properties. Notice was published in the news paper in accordance with law. No one has raised any objection to the petition. The father of the minor child, who had executed Exts. A2 and A3 settlement deeds, had appeared before Court and had filed an affidavit to confirm that he has no objections against the prayers made in the petition and that the appellant has no interest adverse to the minor.

(2.) BEFORE the District Court, the appellant / petitioner was examined as PW 1. The intending purchaser of the property was examined as PW 2. Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. Ext. A1, the birth certificate of the minor was produced to confirm the age of the minor child. Exts. A2 and A3 are the settlement deeds under which the minor has acquired exclusive rights over plaint A schedule property and fractional right over plaint B schedule property. Exts. A4 and A5 are valuation certificates issued by the Village Officer to confirm that Plaint A and B schedule properties have the value of Rs. 5,40,000/- and Rs. 2,44,800/- respectively. Ext. A6 sale agreement shows that the price offered is Rs. 50,000/- per cent and sale for such price would exceed the valuation shown in Exts. A4 and A5.

(3.) THOUGH there was no opposition against the proposed transfer, the learned District Judge appears to have felt that the bona fides of the appellant / petitioner has not been proved by production of any documents. The Court further noted that even though it is asserted that the intention is to purchase some other property in the name of the minor, nothing tangible has been produced to show that such a bona fide intention is entertained. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the District Court was obviously in error in coming to the conclusion that the bona fides of the appellant / petitioner has not been proved. The petitioner / appellant is the mother of the child. She has no interest whatsoever against the child. The father of the child under whom the property was acquired by the minor has also appeared before the Court to confirm that such transaction is in the interests of the minor child. In these circumstances, it was unnecessary and idle for the Court to look up for other documents in evidence to prove the bona fides of the petitioner, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that it is true that specific proposal of the proposed purchase had not been placed before the learned District Judge. Until the amount comes in handy, it may not be prudent to initiate steps for purchase of any other property as disposal can be effected only after getting the permission of the Court. Delay in compliance may attract adverse consequences and that is why no specific agreement was entered into for purchase of any other property. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that to show the bona fides of the appellant, the appellant shall ensure that the entire consideration of sale is deposited in any nationalised bank such that the capital along with interest accrued shall be payable only to the minor child on her attainment of majority. In the meantime, if there is any proposal for purchase of any other property to the advantage or benefit of the minor, appropriate application shall be made and further permission taken, submits the learned counsel for the appellant.