Master Mukheshgowda R E vs Nil on 21 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Master Mukheshgowda R E vs Nil on 21 August, 2012

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

                              -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                           BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

        WRIT PETITION NO.28072 OF 2012 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN :

Master Mukeshgowda R.E.
Aged about 16 years
Son of M.Eregowda
Minor in age
R/a Ramagovindapura Village
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk
Bangalore Rural District
Rep by his father and natural guardian
Eregowda.                                         ..Petitioner

(By M/s. Giri Associates, Adv.,)

AND :

Nil.                                        ..Respondent

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
20.7.2012 in G & WC No.2/2012 on the file of the Court of
Civil Judge (SD) Chikkaballapura at Annexure-D and to
permit the petitioner to sell their right in the schedule
property as sought by them as per Annexure-B.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made the following:-
                              -2-



                        ORDER

Petition filed under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permission to sell the property bearing Sy.No.246/1 (Old Sy.No.246), measuring 3 acres 34.04 guntas, situated at Hosapete Village, Jagamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District is rejected by the Court below. Petitioner is aged about 16½ years. Petitioner's father has entered into agreement of sale for the purpose of selling the property in question. The Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner's father on the ground that the minor will attain the majority within 1½ years and that therefore, it is not just and proper to grant permission to the petitioner's father to sell the property in question on behalf of the minor petitioner. -3-

2. The records produced by the father of the petitioner before the Court below do not disclose as to whether the petitioner has taken care to protect the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner will attain majority within a span of about 1½ years. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner's father by exercising its discretionary power.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that not only petitioner, but also other family members are the owners of the property in question and all of them intend to sell the property. Such fact is not forthcoming in the petition filed before the Court below. The Court cannot assume something in favour of the petitioner in the absence of such averments in the petition. -4-

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE *ck/-

-5-

MSGJ:                                WP.28072/2012(GM-FC)

4-9-2012

                 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO


       It   is    open   for   the   petitioner   to   make   fresh

application, if he so chooses, before the Court below with all relevant records.

Sd/-

JUDGE mn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court