Madras High Court
Mani vs Nil on 18 April, 2023
CMA.No.387 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2023
CORAM:
The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.No.387 of 2023
Mani ... Appellant
Vs.
Nil ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to set aside the Judgment and Decree
passed in G.O.P.No.68 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Villupuram by allowing the present Civil miscellaneous appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Gunasekar
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking permission to sell the petition mentioned property on behalf of the Minor Manoj in favour of one Parimala for a sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- as per sale agreement dated 13.12.2021 for the welfare of the minor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023
2.The petitioner is the father of the minor, Manoj and he had purchased the property in the name of the Minor Manoj on 23.05.2012. The petitioner claimed that he has no resources to educate the minor child therefore, he wanted to sell the subject property and for that purpose he entered into a sale agreement with one Parimala on 13.12.2021, agreeing to sell the subject property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/-. When the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale agreeement, he refused to register the document as the property stood in the name of the Minor. The petitioner therefore, approached the Principal District Court, Villupuram under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
3.The lower Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the guideline value of the property as per Ex.P8 was Rs.100/- per sq.ft. and since the consideration of the sale agreement was much below the guideline value, the minor would not be benefitted from the sale. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.
4. I have heard Mr.V.Gunasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the sale consideration as per the guideline value is Rs.2,18,000/- and under the agreement of sale, the consideration is Rs.2,15,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a difference of Rs.3,000/- only between the sale consideration in the agreement and the guideline value. He further submitted that he was prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
6. On a consideration of the entire materials placed on record and in view of the fact that there is not much difference between the guideline value and the sale consideration, I am of the view that the permission to sell the property can be granted by imposing conditions for safeguarding the interest of the Minor. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to sell the property with a condition that the entire sale consieration shall be deposited in the name of the minor in any of the nationalized Banks, in interest earning fixed deposit with cumulative interest. The minor will be at liberty to withdraw the amount on attaining majority and by making proper application before the Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023
7. In view of the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
8. The above said order dictated in the Court on 10.04.2023 was kept in abeyance and the matter was posted for clarification on 13.04.2023. Again, the matter was posted under the caption, “ for clarification on 18.04.2023”.
9. Today, this matter is listed under the caption, “ for clarification”.
10. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in G.OP.No.68 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
11. The appellant herein is the father of minor Manoj. The appellant/petitioner filed an application under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, praying to permit the petitioner to sell the petition mentioned property. According to the appellant/petitioner, he is a fruits and vegetable vendor and he purchased the property in the name of his minor son, Manoj on 23.05.2012. The petitioner's case is that he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023 originally admitted his son in a private school, but, while the minor son was studying 4th standard, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, he could not afford his son's education in the private school as he was pressed for funds. As the Appellant wanted to continue his son's education in a private school, he wanted to sell the minor's property. Hence, he decided to sell the property to one Parimala, W/o Lakshmanan and entered into an agreement on 30.12.2021 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- . When the appellant approached the Registrar's Office for registration of the sale agreement, the same was returned on the ground of want of permission from Court for the sale. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition to permit him to sell the property.
12. After the case was taken on file, no objections were filed. The appellant/petitioner examined himself as PW1 and examined one more witness as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. The lower Court on the basis of the evidence rejected the petition on the ground that as the consideration stipulated in Ex.P.8, the Agreement of sale, was below the guideline value of the property, it would not be in the best interest of the minor. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District Court, the father of the minor has filed the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023
13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the guide line value of the property at the relevant time was marked as Ex.P.8 and from the same, it is seen that the value of one sq.ft was Rs.100/-. The value of the property stated in the sale deed was just Rs.3,000/- less than the guideline value. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the reasoning of the lower court that the property was sought to be sold for less than the guide line value could not be sustained. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's minor son is now studying 7th standard and therefore he very much needs the funds for his son's education. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed to permit the petitioner to sell the property.
14. It is trite that the permission under Section 29 of Guardian and Wards can be granted only if there is necessity and on proof of evident advantage to the minor. The lower court has considered both the aspects and in my view rightly declined permission. The Minor is now only in the 7th standard and if the property is sold after some time it may fetch better price which can be invested in the Minor's higher education. It is common knowledge that the value of lands are ever increasing. In my https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis view therefore it would be in the best interest of the minor to wait for CMA.No.387 of 2023 some more time as the minor is only in the 7th standard. No pressing necessity except shifting the minor to a private school is pleaded. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Judge and hence the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Principal District Court, Villupuram in GOP.No.68 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 is hereby confirmed. No Costs.
18.04.2023 Vv Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No To:
1. The Principal District Court, Villupuram
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.387 of 2023 N.MALA, J.
Vv C.M.A.No.387 of 2023 18.04.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis