Delhi High Court
Smt. Sakshi Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.123/2014
% 25th April, 2014
SMT. SAKSHI DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.7181/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.7182/2014 (condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 156 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
FAO 123/2014 Page 1 of 3 + FAO No.123/2014
3. This first appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 29.7.2013, by which the appellant/petitioner, who is the natural mother of the minor Manya Sharma, has been denied permission to sell 1.19% (1/84 th ) share of the minor in the property bearing no.C-494, Gali no.11, Majlis Park, Delhi-33. One of the main reasons for not allowing sale of the undivided interest of the minor is that the share is an undivided share of joint family property.
4. In law, there is no bar to sell an undivided share in the joint family property provided there is no prejudice to the family and there is no prejudice which is found by the court below to deny the transfer of the interest. Also, the interest of the minor is so miniscule that no prejudice will be caused. I fail to understand that what would be the advantage to the minor in continuing to have a minuscule interest of 1.19% in the suit property, because the monetary value of such amount cannot be used for upkeep and maintenance of the minor without selling thereof. The object of taking permission from the Court for selling of the property is to ensure that interest of minor is protected and the property is sold for legal necessity. Taking care of the minor and upkeep and maintenance is a legal necessity, FAO 123/2014 Page 2 of 3 more so in the facts of the present case in which minor had a very small share and which is otherwise useless for the minor. A legal necessity or benefit of the minor exists for selling the minor's share. In any case in order to ensure sanctity of the joint family I hold that the share of the minor will be first offered at market value to any one joint owner and only if a joint owner refuses to purchase the share of Manya at market value the same can thereafter be sold to a third person. Market value will be the value at which a third person agrees to purchase the minor's share.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Guardianship Court is set aside. Appellant who is natural mother of the minor will be entitled to sell the undivided share of the minor on complying with the necessary formalities before the court below of giving the surety bond etc. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
APRIL 25, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
FAO 123/2014 Page 3 of 3