JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Assailing the order dated 03.12.2021 in G.W.O.P. No.20 of 2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

2. Vide aforesaid order, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 29(a) & (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act, 1890’) r/w Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act, 1956’) seeking ratification of sale transaction covered by registered sale deed vide document No. 2086 of 2017 entered between the appellant and Kede Lachmanna in respect of the schedule property as absolute sale transaction on her behalf and also on behalf of her minor children i.e., Kumari Aripally Harini, Master Harshith and Kumari Hasini.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Court below. She is the mother of three minor children i.e., Kumari Aripally Harini, Master Harshith and Kumari Hasini. According to the appellant, her husband, Aripally Chinna Narasaiah, was absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy. No. 621/EE, situated at Pipri Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District having purchased the same from its original owner through an unregistered sale deed. Upon the death of her husband on 29.05.2015 leaving the appellant and the three minor children as his legal heirs, the appellant got the property mutated in her name, converted the said land into house site plots and sold the same in favour of Kede Lachanna vide registered sale deed document No. 2086 of 2017 by delivering the vacant possession in his favour. In light of the fact that the minor children of appellant are equally having share in the subject property but the sale deed was executed exclusively by the appellant, since the bank authorities rejected the request of the purchaser for grant of housing loan, the appellant had approached the Court below with the present O.P. seeking ratification of the sale transaction contending that she being the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family, has sold the property and the sale consideration of 3/4th share was utilized only for the benefits of the minors.

4. Before the Court below, apart from marking 21 documents such as title deeds, pahanies, death certificate of husband of appellant, aadhar cards of parties of sale transaction & minors, the appellant got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is to the effect that the late husband of appellate was owner and possessor of the petition scheduled property, upon his death on 29.05.2015, the appellant got the property mutated on her name, converted the land into house site plots, sold away the plots in favour of Kede Lachanna by executing a registered sale deed and utilized the sale consideration for the benefit of minors. Considering the said evidence, the Court below was of the view that the sale transaction covered by the registered sale deed document No. 2086 of 2017 is in contravention of Section 29 of the Act, 1890 as enunciated under Section 30 of the Act, 1890 and therefore, the said transaction cannot be approved by the Court at this juncture and accordingly dismissed the O.P.

5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is none other than the mother and the natural guardian of the minors, who has executed the sale deed vide document No. 2086 of 2017 in favour of Kede Lachmanna in the capacity of Karta of joint family by selling away the petition schedule property, which is the undivided property of the joint family, for the benefit of minors and as such, the Court below ought to have granted permission ratifying the sale transaction as the said sale transaction is not void under the Act, 1956 or under Act, 1890. Since the sale is not absolute void, but is voidable, it is contended that even subsequent to the sale deed, the sale can be validated by granting