Brij Wati and Others vs General Public and Another

G.C. Garg, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.

Sat Parkash minor through his mother filed a petition u/s 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking permission to sell the land of the minor. This petition was accepted by order dated 1.6.1991 of the Guardian Court.

Appellants filed an application for revocation of the order dated 1.6.1991 by alleging that Sat Parkash had not been adopted by Angoori Devi and even otherwise she was not competent to adopt him and that the appellants, being heirs of Angoori Devi, were entitled to inherit the land in dispute but were not intentionally made parties in the original petition seeking permission of the Guardian Court to sell the land in dispute. This application was opposed by filing a reply.

On the pleadings of the parties, amongst others, the following issue was framed :

"Whether there is sufficient ground for setting aside the order dated 1.6.1991 ? OPA"

After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that there was no ground for setting aside the order dated 1.6.1991. This is how Smt. Brijwati and others have filed this appeal.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the minor is not the owner of the laud as he could not be adopted by Smt. Angoori Devi and even otherwise the adoption deed is bogus and that the applicant-appellant are owners of the land by inheritance.

It is not for the Guardian Court to go into the question whether the minor is or is not the owner of the land sought to be sold. The Guardian Court is only concerned to see if the sale sought to be made is for the benefit of the minor. Question of title is to be decided by the Civil Court and in fact such a dispute is pending adjudication between the parties. Not only this, the appellant s have already obtained an order of injunction restraining the minor to see the property. It is, thus, not shown as to how the appellants will suffer if the order of the Guardian Court is not set aside. Even if the sale is effected, it is the purchaser who will suffer if the minor is held to be not the owner of the property qua which permission has been obtained. The order of permission does not declare the minor to be the owner of the property. It has not been shown that the permission granted is against the interest of the minor.

It also could not be shown that the appellants would suffer if the impugned order is not set aside. The only contention is that it will create complications. In the event of the sale by the minor, vendees can be brought on record under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and they will be bound by the decision of the Civil Court if it is held that the minor is not the owner of the land. I, thus, see no basis for the apprehension.

For the aforesaid reasons this appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The learned Trial Court is, however, directed to dispose of the suit at a very early date so that the title to the property is decided and set the rest.