BELA SAHI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the petitioner (appellant herein) vide orders dated 5th Sept., 1990, has been permitted to sell the land of the minor, yet the onerous conditions which have been placed by permitting the same have driven her to this Court.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case go to show that the appellant filed an application under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for grant of permission to sell agricultural land belonging to her daughter Resham Kaur a minor, for the reason that she is residing at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh and there is no male member to look after the land which is situate in Punjab and that it was not only difficult but almost impossible for her to manage the land and that she was apprehending danger to her life due to the death of her husband who was murdered in Punjab. It is further undisputed that the only person who objected to the grant of permission was Sukhbir Singh who has been held to be holding the property of the minor as a trespasser, without payment of any rent or anything to the minor. The learned trial Court only on the statement of the contesting-respondent that he was prepared to pay Rs. 2,25,000.00 per acre as sale consideration to the minor, imposed the following conditions:- i) that the land of the minor shall be sold at a price not less than Rs. 2,25,000.00 per acre; ii) that the petitioner shall furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 2,25,000.00 indemnifying the minor; iii) that the sale deed shall be executed within three months from the date of issue of formal certificate of permission to the petitioner; iv) that the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the name of the minor in Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Civil Lines, Jalandhar, in fixed deposit receipts for a period of five years. No withdrawal shall be allowed without prior written permission of the Guardian Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that in view of the established facts, narration of which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment, the conditions imposed by the Guardian Judge as such, are so onerous that in a way it tantamounts to rejection of the application. He further contends, and again rightly, that such conditions have been imposed only on the asking of the contesting-respondent without realising that an exorbitant price was mentioned by him simply with a view to hold on to the land as long as he could possibly do. Mr. Amarjit Markan, however, appearing for the contesting-respondent, has sought to justify the impugned order by contending that in order to protect the property of the minor, the conditions imposed by the guardian Court were perfectly, justified.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the clear view that the guardian judge while imposing the conditions detailed above has simply ignored the relevant facts that were available on the records of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner is a widow living in Madhya Pradesh and her husband was murdered in Punjab. Admittedly, she is unable to manage the property of the minor and out of fear with which she is naturally afflicted, is even unable to visit Punjab. Admittedly as well, the price of Rs. 2,25,000.00 has been mentioned to be the minimum sale price on the mere asking of the contesting respondent who is in illegal occupation of the land. The respondent, although stated before the guardian judge that he is prepared to purchase the property at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000.00 per acre, but while summoned by this Court he changed his stance by categorically saying that he is not in a position to purchase the land. In fact, this Court with a view to find out authenticity in the statement of the respondent, thought of even offering him to purchase the land and it is in this context that he stated that he was not in a position to purchase the land. From the narration of facts given above, it is apparent that the conditions imposed by the guardian Judge and, in particular, the condition regarding the minimum sale price, were on the mere asking of the respondent who, as stated earlier, when offered to purchase himself without any hesitation refused. On the facts that are available on the record of this case, I am of the considered view that the guardian judge did not apply his mind, and in a mechanical manner, on the saying of the respondent, imposed the condition of the minimum sale price. It should not have been very difficult for the guardian judge to unearth the real intention of the contesting respondent if some thinking was done by him. The onerous conditions imposed by the guardian judge while permitting sale of the land of the minor by the appellant, thus, need to be set aside and are hereby set aside. It should be enough if the petitioner is directed to seek confirmation of the sale that she might make on behalf of the minor and the sale proceeds are deposited, after confirmation of the sale, in any of the nationalised banks at Indore and further that any time the amount is required to be withdrawn, the same would be done with the permission of the guardian judge at Indore by making out a case that the money required to be withdrawn is needed for the benefit of the minor. The conditions imposed by the guardian judge, are, thus, set aside and are substituted with the ones I have enumerated above.