Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—The above-mentioned revisions were dismissed in open Court today for reasons to be recorded later on. My reasons for dismissing these revisions are as follows.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tewari, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.P. Singh Gaur alongwith Sri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 and 2.

3. The revisionist has assailed an order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow rejecting the application/objections filed by one Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, challenging the sale of two plots by the natural guardian of two minor girls, on the ground that property was being sold at an inadequate price.

4. The respondent No. 1, Smt. Nootan Agarwal moved an application in the capacity of guardian of two minor girls (her own daughters) for selling the plots situate at Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The guardian of the children had indicated in her application seeking permission for the sale on the ground that she would purchase a flat in a multi-storeyed building, namely, Nakchhatra Apartments in Indira Nagar locality of the city of Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (thirteen lacs). The two plots were to be sold for Rs. 12,00,000/- (six lacs rupees per plot). Initially the application was rejected by the then Additional District Judge, Lucknow on 14.9.2005. The guardian moved an application seeking review of the order dated 14.9.2005. The review petition was allowed vide order dated 10.1.2006. The Court was of the view that Rs. 6,00,000/- per plot was adequate price as per circle rates for the plots situate in Gomti Nagar locality. The permission to sell the property was granted by the concerned Court and the guardian had taken advance from the purchasers and according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, a formal sale-deed has also been prepared and the same is to be presented before the Sub-Registrar for its formal registration.

5. When the permission was granted by the learned Additional District Judge to Smt. Nootan Agarwal, guardian of minors Km. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal, the revisionist Ram Krishna Gupta entered the scene by moving an application raising objection against the permission granted by the competent Court. The revisionist has claimed himself to be a friend or well-wishers of the two minor girls as he wanted to offer Rs. 7,00,000/- per plot as price. He had also offered further higher price upto Rs. 9,00,000/- per plot. As per learned Counsel for the revisionist, he was also prepared to pay damages and interest, if any, on the advance, which was received by the guardian of the minor girls. The learned Court below rejected the application/objections of the revisionist, who had offered higher price for the two plots. Learned Additional Judge has indicated in the order dated 10.1.2006 that the permission to sale the property.

6. Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court as reported in 1996 ALR 24, Chittar Mal v. Jagannath Prasad and AIR 1918 All 94, Prem Sukh Das and another v. Lachmi Tewari, and a decision of Madras High Court as reported in 1988 ILR 12 Madras 148, Imami v. Kallu, in support of his submissions that this Court ought to have rejected the exercise of selling the property at lower price than the one what was being offered by the revisionist. No action can be taken by the guardian against the interest of her minors. the mother was not obtaining proper, adequate value of her daughters’ property. According to Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, the findings of the learned Court below have not been recorded in accordance with law and the same are perverse. The law is settled that welfare of a minor is to be paramount consideration.

7. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties have resisted the revision and drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 6, 8 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and various relevant provis