High Court Karnataka High Court

H B Manjunath vs Kumari Niharika on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
H B Manjunath vs Kumari Niharika on 3 March, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILED UNDER AR'IIcLf:«:-s;{é2IsV'.'z:II:q__§~,-:.gmV

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QL1A$§vi T:H;E ORTDERV2  2
PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE;2(SR--.«DN.'§&CI;iIKK13MflGALUR, ';

DT.16.8.2GO8 IN G 85 W c NO/3/2098 (AN-NE}:i4C}*I'ANI)_   

THIS WRIT PETITION 'OOMINI3 "ON  A'vI§IeEI..IIéIINAI;Ir2'

HEAF31NG,THIS DAY, THE COURT MHQE T_ijIE 
V Q  

Order eIatedAV'16.1O,2OO3V  85 we 3/2007
grantiilg pCI'II1}'.S's73_".Vi(')£['I?'.::i:V~_1V£\§V    guardian of the
minor girl to  share in the undivided
petidon   in this writ petition.

2.  Niharika is the slaughter of

  Rcsoondcnt No.2 is the mother of the

  n;k""'.";I. Petitioner No.1 H.B.Manjunatb. is the

":uiIO'£Vh.2tIrV Gowda and Petitioner No.2 H.L.S1:1arath

Z  is thAe---gOn_'vOf afioihcr bmther Of Late.Narayana Gowda. Both the

" " 'TT'-.$2€§ifi.Q}3.C2'§3,_.'éOI1fE11d that the permission granted to $631 or alienate

2'   ';mi1jI.o1"s share in the undivided property is iilcgal.

3. The petition. seeking permission to alienate the minofs

  "Interest was flied under Section 29 of the Guardian and Waxtis

%



3
Act readwith Section 8 of the Hindu. Minority and Gualxiianship

Act contending that in View of the needs of the mine; 

xequimmem: to discharge the loan incurred by   'bf; 

mm." or girl, Late Narayaua gowda, itihiiiiaxi "1   

seek permission of the Court to  of {he  intexest
of the minor girl in the   ii

4. The applicants befere.    contended that

the permission"  fycif of the minor girl.
They also   already been entexed
into ivith:.;ie'n'i~_:v    agreeing to sen 15 acres
20 gxmtasziofjland   13 lakhs. The objections raised

by theA.;_setitioi:i§e1:e hereiii gigs to the effect that the petiiionere

 iii:-.v«e    right over the property as the 21"'

 of the minor girl had agreed to seli the

i    in  It was further contended by them that

 wasiio necessity for the property to be sold md the

   could be managed effectively with the help and support

  {he pefitionexs herein. It was also aliegm that the sak was not

   the interest of the miner girl. The petitioners further urged

that they had already instituted a suit in O.S.No.-40/200? on the

kw



file of the Additional Civii Judge (Jr.Dn.) 

direction to defendants 1 and 2 to cafl   

purchase the plaint schedule   the :4

ageement dated 10. 10.2005.

5. The Court below  the entire
materials on record hae who sought
permission to sell'  minofe  other than the
mother and tlrze   of  The Court below
has also  admittedly there were
 of khata between the petitioners

and the xeepondente  the death of Narayana Gowda. It

 has  taicen  of the important fact that there were

   Eoblitgafions  debts to be discharged by the family

eonsietingevébfV.pv_th:e'-:t1other and the minor girl. As there was no

 _a}ternative'  the natmai guaztiian except to dispose of the

iizoperties, so as to meet the requirements of

  the loan and also to ensure proper education and

  wsheilter for the minor, the Court below found it necessary to gent

" « * 'permission as sought for.

Fe"



5
6. In so far as the contention urged by the petitionexs

herein Iegaxding their right of preemption, them 'has

observed that it is for the petitioners to establish   

the suit filed by them. The Court he-1-s"'re--f1'am-- c '    b j 

the said aspect of the matter in View   ef 

suit.

7. Learned counsel  fo:r   that in
View of the pendency of   could not have
granted peI'missio;;"tQ  u  Counsel for the
respondent    iettier passed.

3. parties and on pemsal of
the matet§aIs’– the Court below has acted in

accordance the contained under Section 8 of the

..VHindu.«i’@i’fie.:ity a:i3;t*.’..V:(V:’;t_1_Ha’AI:’£Iia:1ship Act. It has kept in mind the

*i_.tT1tAfiiv’tStV0f girl while granting pennission to alienate the

xytxo dispute with regard to the fact that there

V were §i1anciei’ebfigafians and farm!’ 3′ debts which were Iequ1red°

: The property in question in respect of which

is yanted to alienate is jointly owned by the mm” or

‘T natural guardian mother. The Court below has observed

that the family debt to be discharged and the need £1.nd

provide the basic necessities to the minor firl warrant gyexfiniésion

to be ganted for sale of the pIopcrty:~aiid~–thc

had no right to come in the way of V

the minor. L b j I V

9. Admittedly, there bg’:t\v.ocfli:vt11e.vv;;>etitioners
and the Wife of his death with
rcgani to the khatgyto records. The
rights 3115 7*.’-he any, based on any
other in other appropriate
forum. Infogt, have instituted a separate suit.

The Court hoiofir obscxvc that the issues raised

mspg:<;t'Vof.fhat oaxxoot be gone into in this proceeding. In

I do not find any 11%" ality or error of

passed by the Court: below. The order

V iI7i'ti3ef"'intcI*cst of the man" -or and is in acooxdance with

" " writ petitimx is devoizl of merits and is themfore

{_

Itflge

'' JL