IMPORTANT POINT
The District Court has jurisdiction to declare guardianship of a minor's property, including amounts in the Gratuity Pension Fund, rejecting the Family Court's limitations.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The issue in question in this appeal pirouettes around certain sums eligible to the minor child of the first appellant, standing in the Gratuity Pension Fund (GPF) of deceased Sri.K.F.Bert, who was working as a Sub Inspector of Police under the Department of Kerala Police, who unfortunately died intestate on 25.02.2023.

2. The appellants are the wife and major daughter of the deceased; while, the controversy in question is confined to the share of the GPF entitled to the minor child of the first among them.

3. When late Sri.K.F.Bert died, a claim was made by the appellants on their own behalf and on behalf of the minor child on the amounts due under the GPF and we understand – as expressly admitted - that the appellants were given their dues without any objection. However, when it came to the share of the minor child, the Authorities are stated to have directed the appellants to obtain a declaration of guardianship in favour of the first among them; and that they, thereupon, filed GOP No.308/2023 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Irinjalakuda.

4. However, the aforementioned GOP has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that “provident fund and GPF cannot be termed as a property under Section 29 of Guardians and Wards Act” (sic); and hence, that the remedy of the appellants is to move the jurisdictional Family Court, under the provisions of the Family Courts Act.

5. The appellants challenge the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District Court as being misdirected and improper; and assert that the GOP was maintainable only before the said Court and not before the jurisdictional Family Court. They thus pray that the order of the learned Additional District Court be set aside and GOP No.308/2023 be allowed.

6. Sri.Nayana Varghese – appearing for the appellants, began her submissions drawing our attention to Sections 7 and 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short “the Act”). The learned counsel pointed out that, as per Section 7 of the “Act”, it is the District Court which has been vested with the jurisdiction to consider an application for the appointment of a guardian for both the person and property of a minor; and that Section 29 thereof, then imposes limitation on the power of the said guardian to mortgage, charge, transfer by sale, gift, exchange or to lease such property for a term exceeding five years, or for one year after the ward ceases to be a minor, without the permission of the Court. She argued that, therefore, it is unmistakable in its tenor that Section 7 of the “Act” takes into its umbra property of a minor of every kind — be it movable, immovable or otherwise; and relied upon two judgments of this Court, namely Narayana Elayathu K.S. v. Sandhya [ 2022 (1) KLT 77 ] and Anitha Abraham v. Jacob Oommen [ 2003 (1) KLT 417 ], to fortify her argument that, any application for the purpose of declaration of the guardianship of the person or property of a minor will lie only before the District Court and not before the learned Family Court. She thus prayed that this appeal be allowed.

7. Sri.P.M.Shameer – learned Government Pleader, representing the respondent Accountant General – which Authority was, in fact, impleaded by us suo motu to verify whether they have any objection to the release of the GPF of late Sri.K.F.Bert in favour of the minor child – submitted that his client is only concerned that any release of such amounts is as per law and not in derogation of the imperative statutory requirements. He pointed out that, all which the appellants were told, was to obtain a certificate of guardianship from a competent Court and that therefore, the Accountant General does not have any opinion as to the manner in which it is to be obtained, or the Court which is competent to issue it. He thus left all such issues for the consideration of this Court.

8. The narration of facts as afore render it apodictic that there is no dispute that the