Rabiyaben Yusufbhai Amareliya vs Na
2023 Latest Caselaw 5523 Guj

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/FA/389/2023                               ORDER DATED: 01/08/2023

                                                                                  undefined




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 389 of 2023

==========================================================
                     RABIYABEN YUSUFBHAI AMARELIYA
                                 Versus
                                  NA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                             Date : 01/08/2023

                              ORAL ORDER

1. In this appeal under section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Keshod in C.M.A. No.10 of 2021 by which the application under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act for permission to sell undivided share of the Fayazaben alias Fayazana Usufbhai Amareliya and Farhan alias Faranbhai Usufbhai Amareliya was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Nishit Gandhi appearing for and behalf of the appellant.

3. Mr. Maulik Soni has submitted that the impugned judgement is contrary to the settled position of law, facts and evidence on record. He further submitted that the Court below could have allowed the permission to sell subject to reasonable conditions so as to protect the interest of the minor. Thus, in this context, referring to section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act and ratio

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/389/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2023

undefined

laid down in the case of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Bharatbhai vs. Rabari Panchalbhai, AIR 2020 SC 205, it was submitted by learned counsel Soni that no permission is required to sell the undivided share of the minors in the agricultural land.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgement, this Court is of the considered view that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Bharatbhai (supra), has categorically observed that in the case of an undivided share of a minor in joint family property, no permission of Court would be necessary. In the facts of the present case, leave was sought by the mother of the minor and father has already expired. The case is covered by the judgement of the learned Single Judge as referred above and therefore, without much discussion, the impugned judgement dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Keshod in C.M.A. No.10 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is permitted to sell the undivided share of minor son in in the agricultural land.

5. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) SUDHIR