RAMILABEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL Vs. NA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jeet B. Karia, learned advocate for the appellants.

(2.) By way of this Appeal under Sec. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 read with Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act , 1956, the appellants have challenged refusal of permission to sell the share of minor in the properties mentioned in the application in detail and referred to in the impugned order passed by the 3 rd Additional District Judge, Dhrangadhra dtd. 7/1/2022 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2021.

(3.) Mr. Jeet B. Karia, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that appellant no.1 being the mother and natural guardian has spent huge amount for education of the minor, who is aged about 17 1/2 years at present after the sad demise of her husband on 14/1/2021. He has further submitted that now it has become difficult to manage the financial affairs and she is not able to look after the said properties i.e. plots and is not in a condition to earn for their living. He has further submitted that the paramount consideration being the welfare of the child, after the sad demise of the father, the appellant - mother being less educated is not in a position to earn for their living and in absence of any other source of earning, the properties, which are jointly owned with the minor alongwith the share of other co-owners, are required to be sold off. It is further submitted that it has not been stated in the application made to the competent Court nor in the deposition of appellant no.1 before the Court that the minor child is studying in Standard 12 th Science stream, who took his exam in March, 2022. The further course of his studies and the expected expenses thereof would be determined only after the result of Standard 12th . He has further submitted that one of the reasons assigned by the Court below that instead of seeking permission to sell off the share of minor, the mother could sell her share of property or put it on rent is not practical and feasible solution as it is jointly owned with other owners. It is further submitted that anybody would intend to purchase the property from all the joint owners not only the share of a part owner and looking at the nature of properties being plots, it cannot be put on rent, and therefore, it is submitted that the said reasons assigned by the learned Judge to deny the permission is not legal.