DIPTI RUSTOGI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dtd. 28/2/2018 by which a petition filed under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'] by the parents of one Akshat Rustogi, seeking permission to sell the property/house bearing No.P-6L, Model Town, Rewari [hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question'], belonging to the minor Akshat Rustogi, to discharge the debts of the creditors from whom money was borrowed to pay the debts of the bank, in order to save the property in question, mortgaged with the bank, being sold at a lesser price, as a distressed sale, has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the property in question was owned by one Ved Parkash Rustogi, who was running a shop in the name and style of M/s Hardwari Lal and Sons in the new grain market, Rewari. Ved Parkash Rustogi had obtained a loan of Rs.45.00 lakh from ICICI Bank, Brass Market, Rewari [hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'] after mortgaging the property in question. He executed a registered Will bearing No.407/3 dtd. 4/2/2016 in the name of his grandson Akshat Rustogi, son of the appellants. He died on 18/6/2016 but at that time the loan was still outstanding. The bank started the process of selling the property in question being the mortgaged property but since it was not less than the value of Rs.60.00 lakhs and the appellants being the parents of Akshat Rustogi in whose favour property had devolved by virtue of a registered Will found that the amount to be recovered by the bank is less and the property in question may be sold at a lesser price, arranged the money from their relatives and paid to the bank. Thereafter they filed the petition under Sec. 8 of the Act, seeking permission to sell the property in question, in order to pay their creditors from whom they had borrowed the money for the purpose of payment to the bank. Although it has come on record that the property in question was mortgaged by the original borrower, namely, Ved Parkash Rustogi and that the present appellants had made the payment to the bank to redeem the property from mortgage and also the evidence to the effect that the loan amount has been deposited after borrowing the same from several persons yet the petition filed under Sec. 8 of the Act has been dismissed on the ground that the sale of the property in question is not for the necessity or advantage of the minor as provided under Sec. 8(4) of the Act.

(3.) At the time of preliminary hearing, this Court had passed the following order on 25/4/2018: -