Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala dated 13.08.2009 by which an application filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the appellant is the mother of minor Gurpreet Singh who is allegedly owner of 50/78 share in 78 Kanals of land described in the first part and 1/2 share in 33 Kanals 7 Marlas of land described in second part, situated within the revenue estate of village Pakho-A, as described in the title of the application. She filed the present application as a natural guardian of Gurpreet Singh aged 8 years (minor) to sell the aforesaid land on the ground that it would fetch good price. Before permission could be obtained she had already entered into an agreement dated 11.06.2008 with Chet Singh S/o Chhota Singh, resident of village Kaleke to sell the aforesaid land at the rate of Rs. 5,80,000/- per acre and had received interest of Rs. 10 lac. The date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 31.12.2008. It was alleged that after sale of the aforesaid land, the sale proceeds shall be deposited in a nationalized bank or would be invested for purchasing some other land in the name of the minor. The applicant/appellant has, thus, alleged that the land is sought to be sold for the welfare of the minor.

3. In this case, the general public was impleaded as respondent who was proceeded against ex-parte on 08.05.2009 and in her ex-parte evidence, applicant/appellant examined herself as AW1 and Sukhdev Singh as AW2 besides tendering some documents in evidence. The learned Court below dismissed application of the appellant after observing as under :-

"After considering the grounds taken in the application as well as the evidence on record, it is found that the sale of the land has been stated to be for the benefit of the minor. It has not been explained as to how it would be for the benefit of the minor. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that the total share in the land of the minor is more than 8 acre. The Jamabandi Ex.A2 shows that it is a good quality land irrigated with canal water. A third person is not a co-sharer in the said land. The original co- sharers in the said land have been shown to be is minor and his father Dalip Singh. The only reasons which has been cited for the sale of the land is that with the sale proceeds either another piece of land shall be purchased in the name of the minor or the sale proceeds shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank. There does not appear any cogent reason for selling such a good quality land in which there is no other third co-sharer and to purchase another land with the sale proceeds. There also does not appear any reason to deposit such a huge amount of sale proceeds in the bank in the name of the minor as the interest of the Nationalized Bank now a days is a very nominal."

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant is in appeal before this court in which learned counsel has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has erred in declining the permission to sell the land of her minor son without appreciating that it was fetching good price and the amount of sale consideration could be deposited in the nationalized bank or could be further invested for the purchase of some other land in the name of the minor. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Chidananda and others v. Smt. Lalitha V. Naik and others AIR 2006 Karnataka 128 and a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shripati s/o Santu Mane v. Goroba s/o Nivarti Ghutukade and another 2009(5) RCR(Civil) 375 : AIR 2009 Bombay 6.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his able assistance.

6. Before appreciating the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to refer to Section 8 of the Act :-

"8