Hazari vs Sushila and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 4756-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just objections.

Civil Revision No. 1139 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 10.1.2011, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which applications filed by Respondents have been allowed and order dated 29.1.2010 has been recalled and the indemnity bond has been ordered to be forfeited and the Petitioner has been directed to deposit the indemnity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-and remaining amount of sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 16,00,000/- within one month from the date of order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, (hereinafter to be referred as the ''Act 1956'').

Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present Petitioner is father of minor Ravi Kumar. Ravi Kumar, minor, through present Petitioner, being his father and natural guardian, filed a petition u/s 8(2) of the Act 1956 with a prayer for grant of permission to sell the land of the minor. Learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide order dated 29.1.2010 allowed present Petitioner to sell the share of minor Ravi in the land subject to furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs with one surety in the like amount and with further undertaking that the entire sale proceeds of said land would be deposited in the name of minor Ravi Kumar in the shape of fixed deposit carrying maximum rate of interest in some Nationalised bank and the same would be disbursed in favour of minor Ravi Kumar on attaining the majority. Indemnity bond was furnished by present Petitioner on 8.2.2010. These facts have not been disputed on behalf of the present Petitioner.

However, admitted facts are that property belonging to minor was sold by present Petitioner as per sale-deed dated 19.8.2010. Though the sale consideration has been mentioned in the sale-deed as Rs. 10,25,000/-however, facts are that the land was sold for total sale consideration of Rs. 40 lacs.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that another land total measuring 33 kanal 19 marla has been purchased in the name of minor Ravi Kumar and Sushila, sister of minor Ravi Kumar in equal shares vide sale deed dated 7.9.2010. However, admittedly, neither the amount was deposited in fixed deposit after selling the land of the minor, as per order of the Court, nor the permission of the Court was sought for purchasing another land in the name of minor. Hence, Petitioner committed breach of conditions of indemnity bond executed by him and breach of conditions imposed while granting him permission by learned Additional District Judge to sell the land of minor.

Hence, in view of these facts, after seeking reply of Petitioner and after hearing both the parties, learned trial Court passed the impugned order, relevant paragraph of which reads as under:

It is now admitted that the land measuring 4 kanal 2 marla in the name of minor was sold for Rs. 10,25,000/-as per the sale-deed dated 19.8.2010 by Hazari and there are signature of Ram Chander and Suresh as witnesses on this sale-deed. Suresh is husband of Smt. Sushila (i.e. Real brother-in-law (Jija) of minor Ravi Kumar). Though an amount of Rs. 10,25,000/-has been shown as sale consideration but it is admitted by Hazari himself that in fact this land was sold for Rs. 80,00,000/-per acre, i.e., the sale consideration was in fact Rs. 40,00,000/-. It is also admitted that the land measuring 33 kanal 19 marla has been purchased by Sushila in the name of minor Ravi to the extent of 1/2 share for Rs. 48,00,000/-vide sale deed dated 7.9.2010.

As admittedly, Petitioner committed breach of terms and conditions of the indemnity bond on the basis of which he was permitted to sell the land of minor, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.