IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 MFA.No. 220 of 2009() --------------------- OP (G & W) No.10/2009 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------ 1. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 40 KUNNIL VEEDU, THALAYAL DESOM,ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA 2. SREEKUMARY,W/O.GOPAKUMAR, AGED 34, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NIL BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN[AMICUS CURIEAU] THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 220 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the I Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P. (G & W) No.10 of 2009, declining to grant permission for the sale of the property belonging to a minor on the ground that appellants who are none other than the natural guardian of the minors could not establish by placing materials on record that the sale of the wet land of an extent of 9 cents standing in the name of the minors in Re-survey No. 120/5 of Block No.13 of Balaramapuram Panchayat is either beneficial to the minor or it is necessitated to pay off any proved debt. 2. It is pointed out that the very property now standing in the name of the minor was purchased by the M.F.A.No. 220 of 2009 2 appellants themselves in 2005, as per the registered document No.1577 of 2005, for a total consideration of Rs.27,000/= and the necessary consideration was paid by the mother. So, it is a benami purchase made in the name of the minors by the parents. Though four years have elapsed thereafter, and even if we consider that the property would have fetched a higher amount, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the father, who has filed a proof affidavit stating that the property will not fetch more than Rs.35,000/=. At any rate, the appellants have agreed to transfer 'B' schedule property in the name of the minors. If so, that should safeguard the interest of the minors. Considering the totality of the facts, as stated above, we find that the court below was not right in declining permission as sought for. 3. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and O.P. (G & W) No.10/2009 stands allowed. The appellants shall produce a certified copy of the document transferring their interest in favour of the minors over the 'B' schedule property, M.F.A.No. 220 of 2009 3 within a period of three weeks, and thereafter, proceed to sell the property standing in the name of the minors. We appreciate on record the assistance rendered by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.