The court has supervisory power over the acts of the guardian to ensure the action is to the advantage or benefit of the minor, and can impose conditions while granting permission to alienate the minor's property.

Narayanan Nambiar, J.

A petition filed under S.29 of the Guardian and Wards act. ( for short 'the act) for permission to alienate the property of a minor, was "closed" by the court below. According to us, the approach made by the court below to the problem cannot be justified.

2. Sindu alias Elizabeth is the minor. Her father and mother jointly applied to the District Court for permission to sell the property of the minor. Her father had 56 acres of land in Tellicherry taluk. He gifted seven acres out of it to the minor as per Ext. A2 gift deed dated 27-1-1982. It is the said land which the petitioners now want to sell.

3. The petitioners are residents of Poovarani Village in Meenachil Taluk (Kottayam District). The first petitioner had already sold the remaining 49 acres. So, what remains to be sold is the seven acres of property covered by the gift. According to the petitioners, they have no other interest in Tellicherry taluk and hence they find it difficult to manage the remaining seven acres of property covered by the gift. The land is cultivated with rubber which is reaching the age of tapping. A third party has contacted them to purchase the property at a reasonably fair price of Rs. 60,000/-per acre. It is stated in the petition that the said offer would be beneficial to the interest of the minor as the petitioners will be acquiring a more profitable area in Idukki district with the sale proceeds.

4. The first petitioner was examined as P.W. 7. He said in his evidence that another property has been acquired by them in the name of the minor recently. The documents of such acquisition were produced. The necessary amount for the acquisition was paid by the father. In the course of evidence, first petitioner stated that the petitioners are prepared to deposit the sale proceeds of the property which now stands in the name of the minor in court till they find out another property for purchase in the name of the minor.

5. The court below, upon the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioners are interested in the welfare of the mirror. Learned District Judge observed further that since the parents have produced documents regarding the acquisition of other properties in favour of the minor utilising their own funds, it is not proper to decline permission to alienate me minor's property, as prayed for in the petition.

6. Inspite of such findings, learned District Judge "closed" the petition with liberty to the petitioners to move the court for sanction to sell the property of the minor after finding out another property that could be purchased in the name of the minor.

7. S.29 of the Act forbids that a guardian shall not without the previous permission of the court transfer by sale any immovable property of his ward. S.30 of the Act makes disposal of immovable property by guardian in violation of S.29, voidable. S.31 of the Act reminds the court that permission can be granted only for the necessity or advantage of the minor and shall also satisfy conditions, if any, that could be attached to the permission. The oilier provisions in the Act make it clear that courts have supervisory power over the acts of the guardian for overseeing whether the action of the guardian is to the advantage or benefit of the minor.

8. We must bear in mind that it is the natural guardian of the minor who applied for permission for selling the minor's property. It should not be forgotten that the custody of the minor also is with him and that the minor is about 17 years old and till now petitioners have been managing the affairs of the minor. She was given education, food and clothing. Nothing is brought out or even suggested that the petitioners have any adverse interest or any other motive in selling the property of the minor. The property sought to be alienated itself was assigned by the father in favour of the minor. The court need not approach the request for permission with a penumbra of suspicion when the natural guardian of a