Smt. Sakshi Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2080 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.123/2014

%                                                    25th April, 2014

SMT. SAKSHI DEVI                                    ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate.


                          Versus


STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent
                  Through:               Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.7181/2014 (exemption)

1.           Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.7182/2014 (condonation of delay)

2.           For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 156 days in

filing the appeal is condoned.

             C.M. stands disposed of.



FAO 123/2014                                                  Page 1 of 3
 + FAO No.123/2014

3.           This first appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890 impugning the judgment of the court below dated

29.7.2013, by which the appellant/petitioner, who is the natural mother of

the minor Manya Sharma, has been denied permission to sell 1.19% (1/84 th )

share of the minor in the property bearing no.C-494, Gali no.11, Majlis Park,

Delhi-33. One of the main reasons for not allowing sale of the undivided

interest of the minor is that the share is an undivided share of joint family

property.

4.           In law, there is no bar to sell an undivided share in the joint

family property provided there is no prejudice to the family and there is no

prejudice which is found by the court below to deny the transfer of the

interest. Also, the interest of the minor is so miniscule that no prejudice will

be caused. I fail to understand that what would be the advantage to the minor

in continuing to have a minuscule interest of 1.19% in the suit property,

because the monetary value of such amount cannot be used for upkeep and

maintenance of the minor without selling thereof. The object of taking

permission from the Court for selling of the property is to ensure that

interest of minor is protected and the property is sold for legal necessity.

Taking care of the minor and upkeep and maintenance is a legal necessity,
FAO 123/2014                                                   Page 2 of 3
 more so in the facts of the present case in which minor had a very small

share and which is otherwise useless for the minor. A legal necessity or

benefit of the minor exists for selling the minor's share. In any case in order

to ensure sanctity of the joint family I hold that the share of the minor will

be first offered at market value to any one joint owner and only if a joint

owner refuses to purchase the share of Manya at market value the same can

thereafter be sold to a third person. Market value will be the value at which

a third person agrees to purchase the minor's share.

5.           In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.               Impugned

judgment of the Guardianship Court is set aside. Appellant who is natural

mother of the minor will be entitled to sell the undivided share of the minor

on complying with the necessary formalities before the court below of

giving the surety bond etc. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




APRIL 25, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne