- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MFA NO.102423/2020 (G & W)

BETWEEN:

SMT JAYASHREE W/O SATISH BHOSALE

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: YOGESHWAR SMRUTI,

IIND CROSS, NANAWADI,

BELAGAVI-590006.

...APPELLANT

(BY SMT.NIRMALA B.G, ADVOCATE)

AND

MISS ANISHA D/O SATISH BHOSALE,

AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,

R/O: YOGESHWAR SMRUTI,

IIND CROSS, NANAWADI,

BELAGAVI-590006.

….RESPONDENT

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 OF GUARDIANS

AND

WARDS

ACT,

1890,

AGAINST

THE

ORDER

DATED

06.03.2020, PASSED IN G & WC NO.29/2019, ON THE FILE OF

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 AND 10 OF THE GUARDIAN

AND WARDS ACT, 1890.

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON

: 27.01.2021

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22.02.2021

- 2 -

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed under Section 47 of Guardians

and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act) calling in question the

order passed in G & WC No.29/2019 by the 1^st Addl. Senior Civil

Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belagavi (for short ‘the Trial

Court).

2.

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

3.

Brief facts of the case:

The appellant is the natural mother and respondent is

another minor daughter. The appellant and respondent and the

other minor child constituted Hindu undivided family and have

inherited an intestate property through the late husband of the

appellant and father of the respondent and other minor child. It

is stated that all are having 1/3^rd share in the joint family

property and the appellant and respondent herein have decided

to sell the property for the benefit of respondent as well as

- 3 -

another minor daughter for their education, maintenance,

marriage and for the better interest of the respondent and minor

child. Therefore, if only 2/3^rd share of the appellant and

respondent is sold, the property will fetch less value as the total

measurement of the property is only 750 square feet. Therefore,

for better interest of the respondent-daughter and minor child

they have decided to sell the property. Therefore, the appellant

has filed petition under Section 10 of the Act, seeking for

permission to appoint the appellant mother as guardian or the

minor’s properties for the purpose of sale of the property as the

said move is beneficial for the minor child also. It is stated that

the notice was issued to the respondent and also by way of

public notice, published in the papers, the respondent herein is

also having no objection and also nobody objected the petition.

Thereafter, the appellant has led evidence by examining herself

as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, which are copy of Property

Register Card, Surviving Family Members Certificate, Birth

Certificate of daughter of appellant-petitioner by name Apeksha,

Original Aadhar Card of appellant-petitioner and Original Aadhar

Card of daughter of appellant, Apeksha respectively.

- 4 -

4.

The Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the

appellant on the ground that the minor who is member of the

undivided family has no individual interest in any property and

consequently guardian cannot be appointed under the Act to the

property of such minor, unless he or she is possessed of any

separate property. Further by assigning reasons, that the

guardian of the property of the minor cannot be appointed in

respect of the minors interest in the Hindu joint family property

under Hindu Mitakshara school of law the petition was rejected.

Therefore, no guardian can be appointed