The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to modify orders to ensure the best interest of minors under the Guardian and Wards Act, and an aggrieved party is entitled to appeal against the court's decision.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

These two appeals are filed by the appellant, an agreement holder against the orders of the learned single Judge - one dated 05.01.2007 made in O.P. No.566 of 2005 and the other dated 30.07.2007 made in common in Applications Nos.2232, 222 and 4124 of 2007.

2. The material facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeals are as follows:

One Govindakutty Menon was the owner of the property admeasuring 6528 sq. ft., bearing door No.78, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai. The said Govindakutty Menon died on 16.04.1992 leaving behind him his wife Vijayalakshmi, the respondent in these appeals and three sons – G.Ramesh, G.Suresh and G.Sathish. G.Sathish died unmarried on 13.05.1995, whereas the other son G.Ramesh died on 26.09.1999 leaving behind his wife Meera Ramesh, Minors Nivedha Ramesh and Krishnan Ramesh. The wife of Ramesh, Meera Ramesh also died on 14.01.2005 leaving her two children Nivedha and Krishnan as her heirs. After the death of GovindaKutty, Vijayalakshmi, the respondent herein, Ramesh and Sathish, who were then alive, along with Suresh, together borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 211. 1993 and after the death of Sathish, the other three viz., Vijayalakshmi, Suresh and Ramesh, who was then alive together borrowed another sum of Rs.35,00,000/- on 211. 1995 – both from M/s Park Town Benefit Fund by executing two simple mortgages over the said property. The property was brought to sale under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act consequent to non payment of the liability and one B.Murugeswaran purchased the property in the auction sale. The respondent Vijayalakshmi and her son G.Suresh challenged the auction sale proceedings in O.S. No.3419 of 2003 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. While the matter stood so, the respondent Vijayalakshmi, G.Suresh, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3419 of 2003 and M/s. Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd., have entered into a compromise agreement with the auction purchaser Murugeswaran in and by which the auction purchaser had agreed to relinquish his right over the property on receipt of Rs.55,00,000/- and that M/s. Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd., had agreed to discharge the liability in relation to the above mortgage deeds dated 211. 1993 and 211. 1995. In those circumstances of the matter, the respondent Vijayalakshmi, who is entitled to 18/32 share in the said property, on her behalf and on behalf of the minors who are entitled to 3/32 share each and G.Suresh, who is entitled to 8/32 share, entered into an agreement on 22.03.2005 to sell away the entire property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the appellant. The appellant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance to the respondent and another sum of Rs.54,50,000/-by way of A/c payee cheque drawn on Indian Bank in favour of Vijayalakshmi to enable her to make the payment to Park Town Benefit Fund and thus the amount was paid and the mortgage was discharged. In the agreement dated 22.03.2005, the respondent agreed to obtain permission of the competent Court for sale of the minors share in the property and also put the appellant in possession of the ground floor of the property on 16.09.2004.

4. In order to comply with the obligation on the part of the respondent, the respondent Vijayalakshmi filed O.P.No.566 of 2005 before this Court under sections 3, 7 to 10 and 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and under Order XXI Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules seeking the following relief before this Court:

.a. appoint the respondent (petitioner in OP.566/2005) as guardian for the person and the property of the minors Nivedha and Krishnan.

.b. grant permission to her for the sale of the property of the minors share described in the schedule to petition.

.c. permit the respondent Vijayalakshmi to withdraw the interest amount accrued on the share amount of the minors agreed to be deposited in the bank for education and maintenance of the minor children.

5. This Court, by