Permission to sell minor's property was granted due to financial necessity for education, emphasizing the child’s welfare over strict property ownership issues.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge, Perambalur in GWOP.No.18 of 2024, the appellant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Before the trial court, the appellant filed an application seeking permission under Sec.7 and 8 of Guardian and Wards Act to appoint her as a guardian for minor Dharani and seeking permission to sell the petition mentioned property including minor's share.

3. On hearing both sides, the trial judge dismissed the petition holding that the family owned other properties. Therefore, the learned judge was not inclined to grant permission to sell the property, which stands in the name of minor Dharani, 1st respondent herein, who is daughter of appellant. Challenging the said findings, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred.

4. The learned counsel for appellant argues that father of minor viz., Baskar was died in the year 2014 leaving behind his two minor daughters and his wife as his legal heirs. The 1st respondent is his eldest daughter, who is aged about 20 years and became major and got married also. But, the appellant, who is wife of deceased Baskar/mother of minor daughter Dharani is living without any source of income, however, minor daughter Dharani is studying X Std. and for her further study and for the welfare of minor, she wanted to sell the property as described in the schedule, which stands in the name of 1st respondent as well as in the name of minor daughter Dharani. The property was admittedly purchased by father of minors during his life time in the name of minor daughters. Now, for the welfare of child and to give better education and after the demise of Baskar, mother/appellant wanted to sell the property, but the trial court dismissed the petition holding that her husband Baskar owned other joint family properties, if at all, any necessity arose, she could sell those properties and not the property stands in the name of minors. The learned counsel for appellant argues that other properties are joint family properties. Therefore, she is not able to handle those properties individually. Since the subject matter of property stands in the name of minor daughter Dharani and elder daughter of deceased Baskar/1st respondent, in order to give better education, she wanted to sell the property, but agreed to deposit her share in the name of minor as per the direction of this court and she may be permitted to use the interest for the welfare of minor daughter until she attain majority. Hence, he prayed to appoint her as a guardian and to permit her to sell the petition mentioned property.

5. Admittedly, as per the partition, deceased Baskar owned nearly about 6 acres and the patta in respect of those lands stand jointly. But, admittedly, the subject matter of property stands in the name of minor as well as 1st respondent comes around 2 acres and 1 cent. For the welfare of minor daughter, as a mother, she wanted to sell the property, since she is not having any other agricultural land. Admittedly, minor Dharani studying X Std.. So, for the betterment of education, the appellant is in need of money. Considering the said family situation as well as for the welfare of minor Dharani, this Court is inclined to appoint the appellant as her guardian and to grant permission to sell minor share, an extent of 1 acre in the petition mentioned property concerned with sale deed dated 28.11.2012 with the condition to deposit her share of Rs.6 lakhs in the name of Dharani, residing at Nannai Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and to permit her to withdraw only interest until Dharani attain majority. It is needless to say that the family owned joint family properties nearly about 6 acres belongs to deceased Baskar and the appellant is instructed not to sell other share of minor in the