IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 MFA.No. 39 of 2005(E) -------------------- OP.79/2003 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- ARUNA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN MELEKALAM, THIRUVADI, THEKKEPOTTA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- SANTHAKUMARI, S/O. CHANDRAN EZHUTHASSSAN THENPADI, NEAR VANI VILAS SCHOOL, CHUNANGAD POST, OTTAPPALM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.F.A.No.39 of 2005-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The appellant is the mother of one minor child named Arjun. Appellant is a widow. Her husband died on 20.01.1998. She filed an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act to appoint her as the guardian. According to her, her husband had 9 cents of property with a house situated in a dilapidated condition. It is stated to be far away from the place where she is residing. It was her case that keeping the property in the present condition will render it useless and cause substantial reduction of its value and as such it is beneficial to the interest of the minor child to sell the property for which one Shamsudheen offered an amount of Rs.30,000/-. She submits that she has no adverse interest against the minor. 2. Learned District Judge, Palakkad considered the matter and taking note of her evidence as Pw1 and MFA 39/2005 -2- Exts.A1 to A4 found that there is no merit in her petition. Inter alia the Court noted that the proposed buyer has offered Rs.30,000/- for 9 cents of property along with a building therein. It is found that the value of the property per cent will come to below Rs.3,335/- inclusive of the building therein. It is found that the appellant failed to establish the value of the building, its extent, carpet area, nature of the building and its old age etc. It is also found that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced to show the value of the property except the testimony of the petitioner. 3. The Original Petition was filed in the year 2003. The appeal was filed in the year 2005. We feel that, at this distance of time, apart from the fact that we see no error in the reasoning of the learned District Judge, it may not be just or proper to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge, Palakkad. We see no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly liable to be dismissed and we do so. However, we make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellant filing a fresh application and convincing the Court with reference to the changed circumstances which may MFA 39/2005 -3- have come into existence. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS