P.Balachandran vs Rohit Balachandran
2021 Latest Caselaw 1846 Ker

                                  1
MFA.No.42 OF 2007

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                  &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                          MFA.No.42 OF 2007

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPGW 52/2006 DATED 24-01-2007 OF
            ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR


APPELLANT/S:

                P.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE RAMAVARMA
                RAJA,PALIYATH,RESIDING AT T.C 22/916/2,,
                SREEMANGALAM,MANAKKAD,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         ROHIT BALACHANDRAN,AGED 13
                S/O.BALACHANDRAN,RESIDING AT T.C 22/916/2,,
                SREEMANGALAM, MANAKKAD,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

      2         RACHANA BALACHANDRAN,AGED 9 YEARS
                D/O.BALACHANDRAN,RESIDING AT T.C 22/916/2,,
                SREEMANGALAM MANAKKAD,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.


     THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2
MFA.No.42 OF 2007




          A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & C.S.DIAS, JJ.
             ======================
                MFA (G&W) No.42 of 2007
             ======================
          Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021.

                          JUDGMENT

C.S.DIAS, J.

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(Guardian)

52/2006 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, North

Paravur.

2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original

petition declining permission to the petitioner to sell the

share of the minor children, namely, Rohit Balachandran and

Rachana Balachandran, who were 13 years and 9 years,

respectively, in the year 2006, the appeal is filed.

3. Admittedly, Rohit Balachandran and Rachana

Balachandran have attained majority. Therefore, they are no

longer governed by the provisions of the Guardian and

Wards Act, 1890. Hence, nothing further survives in the

appeal.

MFA.No.42 OF 2007

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. All

pending Interlocutory Applications are also dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                        C.S.DIAS

SKS/18.1.2021                            JUDGE