JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Kaash K. Thakkar for the appellant in First Appeal No.3694 of 2021, learned Advocate Ms.Trusha Patel appearing for learned Advocate Mr.Bhavesh Babariya on behalf of the appellant in First Appeal No.4282 of 2022 and learned Advocate Ms.Meena Vyas for the appellant in First Appeal No.4591 of 2022.

2. Since a common question of law arises in this group of appeals, though the orders impugned are passed by different Courts in different proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the appeals by way of this common order.

3. The facts so far they are relevant for deciding the present appeals are stated herein below;-

3.1. First Appeal No.3694 of 2021 concerns an application filed by the present appellant before the learned Principal District and Sessions Court at Patan under Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, whereby the present appellant, as mother, has sought permission to sell the right accrued in favour of minor Miss Trisa (Trishna) in joint family property, more particularly for being appointed as guardian for the welfare of the said minor. It appears that vide judgement and order dated 30.7.2021 in CMA DC No.05/2021, the learned Principal District Judge, Patan had rejected the said application inter alia on the ground that the applicant had not produced any material to show the intent that the sale was favourable and in the interest of the minor and further on the ground that there are no details as regards the minor studying.

3.2. Insofar as First Appeal No.4282 of 2022, the same concerns an order passed by the learned 14th Additional District Judge, Rajkot dated 29.1.2022 in Civil Misc. (Guardian) Application No.210 of 2019, whereby the parents of the minor had sought for being appointed as legal guardians of their children, more particularly to sell share of the minor children in a joint family property. Such an application having been rejected by the learned Court below inter alia on the ground that though the property had devolved upon the minors through their father, yet an heirship certificate, which had been obtained in the name of the grandmother and grandfather of the minors had excluded the name of the father and further on the ground that the property, which was to be sold in which the minors had undivided interest had already been sold off.

3.3. First Appeal No.4591 of 2022 concerns a judgement and order dated 30.8.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Surat in CMA DC No.91 of 2020, whereby the application preferred by the present applicant i.e. the mother of the minor children to sell undivided share of minors in joint family property, more particularly for being appointed as guardian of the minors for conducting such sale had been rejected.

4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. At the request of this Court, learned AGP Ms.Megha Chitaliya had also assisted the Court.

5. Learned Advocates for the appellants would principally argue that as such the applications before the learned District Court itself had been misconceived more particularly while there is no requirement of obtaining permission or there is no requirement of being appointed as guardian to sell the undivided share of a minor in a joint family property, yet on account of the fact that the purchasers of the property or the officers in the office of the Sub-Registrar insist for such a permission, the applications are filed. Learned Advocates would submit that while the applications being misconceived, since an order has been passed by the learned District Court, now left without any remedy, the appellants are required to approach this Court by way of these appeals. In support of their submissions, learned Advocates have relied upon various decisions and whereas the decisions, which are relevant for the fact situation are being referred to and discussed by this Court.

6. Learned Advocate Mr.Thakkar has relied upon the decision of the learned Coordinate B