1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambajogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that the said land is purchased for Rs.4.00 lacs and the respondent No.1 wants to sell it for just Rs.2.00 lacs, that itself, shows that the respondent No.1 is not interested in protecting the interest of the minor and the Court has also not considered the interest of the minor. It is submitted that there are other properties standing in the name of respondent No.1, his father and mother, however, the respondent has chosen to sell the property, which is in the name of Ku. Kamna. It is submitted that, even the Court should have considered the provision of Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. However, the court has not considered the said provisions, therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Application, annexures thereto and the decisions of the Assam High Court in the case of SaratKalita and others Vs. Dharma Ram Deka and others, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 44 as well as Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarini Kumar Dutta and others Vs. Srish Chandra Das, reported in 1925 Calcutta 1160, counsel for the applicant submits that the interest of the minor i.e. Ku. Kamna has not been considered, at all, by the trial court and has proceeded to allow the application of the respondent No.1 for sell of the land, which stands in the name of Ku. Kamna.

Learned counsel has tendered, across the bar, a copy of notice received by the applicant in Misc. Civil application No. 18 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.1 herein, before the District Judge at Ambejogai for declaring him or appointing him as guardian and custody of the minor Ku. Kamna. Therefore, counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that filing of such application by respondent No.1 is an indicative fact that he is not declared as natural guardian earlier by the Court and secondly the minor Kamna is not in the custody of the respondent. Therefore, he submits that the revision deserves to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the said respondent and submitted that being the father, the respondent is natural guardian of the minor Kamna. Therefore, the application was filed. It is submitted that the said application was filed seeking permission to sell the land so as to invest the amount for the purpose of future education of the minor, livelihood and for the purpose of marriage also. It is submitted that the respondent is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in the name of the minor and he is ready to keep the said deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs in the name of minor Kamna till she attains the majority. It is submitted that the maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna has forcibly taken the child from his custody. It is submitted that the property which is purchased in the name of minor is acquired by the respondent from his own earnings. Therefore, counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon the averments in the reply, submits that this Civil Revision Ap