Kerala High Court
Shaniba Ummer Farooqu vs Mohammed Ishfaq Farooqu on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MFA.No.44 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 159/2017 DATED 05-01-2019 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT - III, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHANIBA UMMER FAROOQU
AGED 51 YEARS,W/O.LATE UMMER FAROOQU,
PERUMUNDA HOUSE,
P.O.VANIYAMBALAM,WANDOOR VILLAGE,NILAMBUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679339.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MOHAMMED ISHFAQ FAROOQU
AGED 23 YEARS,S/O LATE UMMER FAROOQU,
PERUMUNDA HOUSE,
P.O.VANIYAMBALAM,WANDOOR VILLAGE,NILAMBUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAKM DISTRICT,
PIN-679339.
2 AYASHA JANNA,
AGED 21 YEARS,D/O.LATE UMMER FAROOQU,
PERUMUNDA HOUSE,
P.O.VANIYAMBALAM,WANDOOR VILLAGE,NILAMBUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAKM DISTRICT,
PIN-679339.
R1-2 BY ADV. KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.03.2021, ALONG WITH MFA.45/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (G&W) Nos.44 & 45/2019
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MFA.No.45 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 158/2017 DATED 05-01-2019 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHANIBA UMMER FAROOQU,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.LATE UMMER FAROOQU, PERUMUNDA HOUSE,
P.O.VANIYAMBALAM, WANDOOR VILLAGE, NILAMBUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679339.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MOHAMMED ISHFAQ FAROOQU,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.LATE UMMER FAROOQU, PERUMUNDA HOUSE,
P.O.VANIYAMBALAM, WANDOOR VILLAGE, NILAMBUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679339.
2 AYASHA JANNA,
AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE UMMER FAROOQU,
PERUMUNDA HOUSE, P.O.VANIYAMBALAM, WANDOOR
VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679339.
R1-2 BY ADV. KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.03.2021, ALONG WITH MFA.44/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (G&W) Nos.44 & 45/2019
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021
Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J.
The appellant in both the appeals is mother of the minor
daughter Zakiya Ziya and minor son Mohammed Ishar Farooqu.
The appellant filed two different Original Petitions under Sections
7 and 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act to appoint her as the
guardian of the minors and for permission to sell their undivided
share over the plaint schedule properties.
2. The Court below allowed both the original petitions.
Two sale agreements were executed which were marked as
Exts.A9 and A10 to sell the property to the prospective buyer. The
consideration shown in the sale agreement is `16,706/- per Are.
The fair value of the property shown in the fair value register is
`8,167/- per Are. The court below called for a report from the
Village Officer and the Village Officer submitted a report stating
that the fair value of the property is `62,500/- per Are.
Accordingly, the court below directed the appellant/petitioner to
MFA (G&W) Nos.44 & 45/2019
deposit the share of the minors in fixed deposit based on the
amount fixed by the Village Officer. The appellant challenges that
part of the order in these appeals.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. As stated already, the fair value of the property fixed
in the fair value register is `8,167/- per Are. However, in the sale
agreement, the consideration has been shown as `16,706/- per
Are. Since there was difference, the court below called for a
report from the Village Officer who reported that the market value
of the property is `62,500/- per Are. But, the Village Officer did
not conduct any enquiry at all before issuing the certificate. No
reason has been stated as to how he had arrived at a finding that
the market value of the property is `62,500/-. Learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the property does not have any road
access and it is now a barren land.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that it would be just and proper that the
market value of the property is fixed @`30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
thousand only) per Are. The appellant shall deposit the share of
MFA (G&W) Nos.44 & 45/2019
the minors calculating the market value of the property
@`30,000/- per Are.
Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
Dr.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Rp JUDGE
