Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Kumaresh Babu, J
Reeja – Appellant
Versus
No Respondent – Respondent
O.P.No.249 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.S.Rajesh
For the Respondents:
The court upheld the need to appoint a guardian for the minor's property, emphasizing the necessity of managing the minor's share for their benefit while ensuring legal heir entitlement is respected.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 3, 7 to 10 and 29 - Petition for appointment as guardian and permission to sell minor’s share of properties - Petitioner seeks permission for sale of minor's undivided share for their benefit; evidence provided establishes her legal claim as guardian. (Paras 1, 3, 6)
(B) Sale of Minor’s Property - Court examines entitlement based on legal heirship and the necessity for the minor’s benefit - No objections received from public notice establishes clarity of entitlement and public interest. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petition is filed by the minor’s mother for permission to sell the minor's share in the properties inherited from the grandmother, Late Mrs.Rajamma; the minor is one of the legal heirs entitled to the share.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is granted the appointment as the guardian of the minor’s person and properties, with permission to sell the minor's share and deposit the proceeds in a Nationalized Bank until the minor attains majority.
Issues: The main issues involve entitlement to sell the minor's share and the necessity for the minor's benefit in the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that the minor is entitled to a share in the properties based on legal heirship and requires that the proceeds are secured for the minor's future benefit.
Result: Petition granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks guardianship for minor's property. (Para 1) |
| 2. details about the minor's inheritance and the necessity for guardianship. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. evidence supporting the claims for property management. (Para 4) |
| 4. court outlines the approval process for property sales. (Para 5) |
| 5. final ruling - petition granted. (Para 6) |
ORDER
By this petition, the mother and natural guardian of the minor Ms.S.R.Perlin, seeks permission to deal with the minor’s share of the properties belonging to one Mrs.Rajamma, who is the paternal grandmother to the minor.
2. The petitioner states that her mother-in-law Late Mrs.Rajamma was married to one Mr.Sathyanesan @ J.Mani and had begotten three sons, viz., Mr.Anilkumar, Mr.Sunil Kumar and Mr.Arun Kumar. The petitioner submits that she had got married to the above said Mr.Sunil Kumar, who is one of the legal heirs to Late Mrs.Rajamma and had begotten two children including the Minor Ms.S.R.Perlin. She submits that her mother-in-law Late Mrs.Rajamma had purchased the immovable properties listed under the schedule of the petition. The above said Late Mrs.Rajamma died on 07.03.2023 and one of her sons Mr.Sunil Kumar had predeceased her on 03.09.2022. The petitioner submits that the Mr.Sathyanesan @ Mani, who is the husband of Late rd Mrs.Rajamma is entitled to 1/3 share and the three sons of Late Mrs.Rajamma including her predeceased son Mr.Sunil Kumar are entitled to th
2/9 share each in the immovable properties mentioned in schedule of the petition.
3. The petitioner contends that her husband Mr.Sunil Kumar as one of th the legal heir of Late Mrs.Rajamma is entitled to 2/9 of the share in the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule of the petition. The petitioner further contends that the said Mr.Sunil Kumar died intestate leaving behind his wife the petitioner herein and his 2 children including the Minor Ms.S.R.Perlin as his only legal heirs. The petitioner further contends that the above said legal heirs of Mr.Sunil Kumar, including the minor th Ms.S.R.Perlin are entitled to a 2/27 share each in the immovable properties listed in the schedule of the petition. The petitioner also submits that she along with the other legal heirs of Late.Mrs.Rajamma had entered into two Sale Agreements both dated 15.03.2025, with Mr.B.Prithiviraj @ B.Prithivi Raj, Mrs.P.Shanthi @ P.Shanti and Mr.K.Parthiban for the Sale considerations of Rs.4,53,51,970/- towards the Item No.I and Rs.64.19.000/- towards the Item No.II mentioned in the schedule of the petition. The minor’s share from the above said Sale considerations of the immovable properties amounts to Rs.39,72,420 /- and Rs.5,64,000/- as described under the schedule of the petition. Therefore the petitioner prays that it is necessary to grant permission to sell the minor Ms.S.R.Perlin’s share in the immovable properties for the minor’s benefit.
4. In order to establish entitlement to the relief claimed, the petitioner adduced evidence by examining herself as PW1. In the course of the examination in chief of PW1, 11 documents listed at the foot of this order were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The birth certificate of the Minor Ms.S.R.Perlin has been marked as Ex.P1 which discloses that the minor was born on 19.04.2008. The photocopies of the Sale Deeds are marked as follows; Sale Deed dated 24.04.1996 registered as Doc.No.2234 of 1996 has been marked as Ex.P4, Sale Deed dated 22.04.1996 registered as Doc.No.2173 of 1996 has been marked as Ex.P5 and Sale Deed dated 11.10.1999 registered as Doc.No.4291 of 1999 has been marked as Ex.P6. The printout of the death certificates of Mrs.Rajamma and Mr.Sunil Kumar has been marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P9. The printouts of legal heirship certificate of Mrs.Rajamma and Mr.Sunil Kumar has been marked as Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 respectively. The combined perusal of Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 clearly substantiates the claims made in the petition that as one of the legal heir of th Mr.Sunil Kumar, the minor Ms.S.R.Perlin is en
