SHAMRAO G RANE Vs. SHASHIKANT RRANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the two petitioners, who are the kartas and managers of their respective joint families consisting of themselves and their minor children, for an order that they may be authorised to alienate the shares and interests of their respective minor children, the respondents herein, in an immoveable property situate at Dammer Lane, and agreed to be sold by them to one Dattatraya Ramchandra Naik and to execute in favour of the purchaser the conveyance and all such assurances as they may be necessary, and that the sale of the property be sanctioned as being for the benefit of all the minor respondents.

(2.) The question that arises for my consideration on this petition is whether in accordance with the practice which has hitherto obtained, I should appoint the petitioners the guardians of the property of the minor respondents and sanction the sale or merely authorise the petitioners to alienate the shares and interests of the minor respondents as asked for by the petitioners without appointing the petitioners the guardians of the property of the minor respondents. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the effect of my appointing them guardians of the property of the minor respondents would be to extend the period of their minority and that is a consequence which the petitioners do not desire should follow upon any order which I would make on this petition.

(3.) In support of their contention the petitioners drew my attention to an order which was passed by Mirza J. on December 15, 1926, where he merely authorised the second petitioner therein to alienate the share of his minor son in the family property therein mentioned and to execute in favour of the purchaser or his nominee the conveyance and all such assurances as may be necessary in respect of the same, and also sanctioned the sale, the same being for the benefit of the minor. In the said order the learned Judge also directed that the petitioners do set apart various sums therein mentioned for the marriage expenses and maintenance until marriage of the minor daughters of the petitioners therein. The petitioners also drew my attention to a report made by A.H. Kirtikar, the First Assistant Master of this Court, on date February 4, 1943, in Misc. No. 15 of 1943, wherein he referred to an order made on December 20, 1937, by Kania J. on a petition Misc. No. 138 of 1937, whereby the petitioner therein was authorised to carry into effect the agreement of exchange of property and was also authorised to sell the property which was the subject-matter of the petition at a certain price. On the strength of the two precedents thus cited before me it was contended by the petitioners that the Court has got the power to merely authorise the petitioners to alienate the shares and interests of the minors in the property agreed to be sold by the petitioners and to execute in favour of the purchaser the conveyance and all such assurances as may be necessary in that behalf. S.E. Engineer, the present First Assistant Master of this Court, who was appointed the guardian ad litem of the minor respondents herein, on the other hand, drew my attention to the uniform practice which has hitherto obtained of appointing the petitioners guardians of the property of the minors before sanctioning the transactions as being for the benefit of the minors concerned.