SHEEJA SELIN D/O SUJATHA Vs. NIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The case of the appellant is that she is the mother of Master Jomon, aged 5 years, and Kumari Jomol, aged 3 years, of Nazarath Bhavan, Kannaravila, Athiyanoor Village, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. The minors are under the care and custody of the appellant and she is looking after the affairs of the minors in the best possible manner. Master Jomon is now studying at Kindergarten at Ooruttukala School and Kumari Jomol is under the care and custody of the appellant. The appellant had no interest adverse to the interests of the minors and is suitable to be appointed as the guardian of the minors. The appellant had transferred 2.05 Acres of land in Re-survey No. 15/17 and 15/18 of Kulathummal Village as per Settlement Deed No. 3352/04 of S.R.O. Balaramapuram. It was further averred that there is no permanent income from the property and the parents of the minors propose to take admission for the minors in a modern English Medium School in Thiruvananthapuram, for which a huge sum is necessary. It was further contended that if the petition schedule property, which is measuing only 20 cents, which forms part of larger extent of 185 cents, is sold, the sale proceeds can be utilised for the purpose of education and for the betterment of the children. There is one intending purchaser, namely, G. Surendran, S/o. Devadas, St. Mary's Bhavan, Kannaravila, Nelimoodu P.O., Neyyattinkara, who is ready and willing to purchase the property at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per cent, which is the best available market price in the locality. The appellant negotiated with the said Surendran in anticipation of the sanction from the court. It is prayed that in the interests of the children, the petition schedule property may be permitted to be disposed of.

(2.) There were no respondents in the Original Petition. Four witnesses were examined on the part of the appellant as PWs. 1 to 4. Exts.P1 to P4 were also marked. The appellant was examined as PW1 and the father of the children was examined as PW4.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge found that the appellant had no adverse interest against the minor children and the father had no objection in allowing the petition. But the learned District Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it is the duty of the parents to maintain the children and hence no permission for sale of the property was granted. It was further held that the father was not a party to the petition and it was the mother, who came with the petition.