Param Jeet Kaur (Smt.) vs Hajur Singh and Another

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—The appellant, mother, through minor children, namely, Arshpreet Singh and Gurukirtan Singh, being natural guardian of both, laid application under Sec. 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, ''the Act of 1890'') before the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar (in short, ''the learned trial Court'') seeking permission to alienate the agricultural land measuring 6-10 bighas located in District Sriganganagar, Chak No. 6H Choti, Patwar Halka 13G Choti, account No. 476 of Murabba Nos. 10, 11, 21 and 62, as well as another agricultural land located in same chak, account No. 477 of Murabba Nos. 35 & 42, which were in the joint khatedari of both the minors. The learned trial Court, after considering the application and other materials on record, declined the prayer of the appellant and rejected the application under Sec. 29 of the Act of 1890.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shashi Prakash Joshi, has strenuously urged that while rejecting the petition under Sec. 29 of the Act of 1890, the learned Court below has not examined the matter in right perspective and as such the order is not sustainable. Mr. Joshi further submits that alienation of the property is in welfare of the minors and without considering this aspect of the matter, the learned trial Court has rejected the petition, more particularly, when there was no adverse interest of the appellant being mother of both the minors.

Per contra, Mr. Tak appearing for the first respondent, who is grandfather of the minors, has urged that at present the appellant is living with him and being grandfather of the minors, the respondent is very much concerned about the welfare of the minors.

The appellant, the mother of the minors, is obviously concerned about the welfare of the minor kids and moreover the grandfather of the minors has also consented for permitting the appellant to alienate the property.

In my considered opinion, the order impugned passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly reversed and set aside. Taking into account the larger interest of the minors, the appellant is permitted to alienate the property in question. The consideration amount fetched by the appellant out of this sale transaction to the extent of one-forth may be utilized for the welfare of the children, and the rest of three-fourth of amount of consideration be deposited in the fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank after equal distribution amongst minors in the joint name of mother and each minor for three years. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.