FAO NO.186 OF 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.186 OF 2012 Date of Decision: 26.2.2013 Meenu Chugh Appellant Versus The General Public and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the appellant RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant who is the natural guardian of her two minor daughters, Ananya and Sarishti challenges order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) dismissing her petition for permission to sell 1/6th share of the minors in, a double storeyed residential house no.523, situated in Sectors 11-12, Part-II, HUDA, Panipat. Notice of the petition was issued to the General Public by publication in the newspaper. No one filed any objection to the petition. The petitioner led ex parte evidence and examined herself as PW 1 and Prem Nath as PW 2. The petitioner, thereafter closed her evidence. FAO NO.186 OF 2012 2 The trial Court held that though a copy of family settlement dated 28.4.2010 has been proved, but as the original family settlement has not been produced and no document has been placed on record to prove that the minors have inherited any share in the property, the petition cannot be allowed. The trial court also held that though the family settlement records that a settlement was effected between the petitioner and her relatives, but relatives have not been impleaded as parties. Counsel for the appellant submits that notice of the petition was issued to the General Public, but as no one, much less any relative, came forward to contest averments in the petition, the trial Court should have allowed the petition. It is further submitted that as the trial court has not recorded any finding that the proposed sale is against the interest of minors, the impugned order may be set aside, the appeal may be allowed and permission may be granted to the appellant to sell the minors' share. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order, the petition filed before the trial court as well as the evidence adduced. The appellant is the mother of the minors and their natural guardian. A notice issued to the general public did not elicit any adverse response or objection as to the minors shareholdings or the appellant's right to sell their share in the house. The trial court was, therefore, required to examine whether the proposed sale is for benefit of the minors, but proceeded to dismiss the petition on irrelevant considerations. The appellant has, during pendency of the appeal, filed FAO NO.186 OF 2012 3 an affidavit, of Ajay Chugh son of late Shri Radhey Sham Chugh, brother of the appellant's deceased husband, one of the co-sharers, in House no.523, Sector 12, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Panipat. A perusal of the affidavit reveals that Ajay Chugh has admitted that minors Ms. Ananya and Sarishti, have inherited 1/12th share each, from their father Vinay Chugh. The affidavit also states that as Meenu Chugh wants to sell the share of the minors, the deponent has no objection if permission is granted. A second affidavit sworn by Smt. Shashi Chugh wife of late Shri Radhey Sham Chugh, aged 70 years, paternal grand mother of the minors is to the same effect. The ownership and shareholdings of minors, in House no.523, Sector 11-12 Part-II, Urban Estate, Panipat, are, therefore, not in dispute. The minors are not drawing any benefit from their share holdings, in the house. The appellant is the mother of the minors and does not have an interest adverse to the interest of her minor daughters. The permission to sell the minors' shares would enable the appellant to enforce the family settlement that requires the brother and mother of her late husband to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- each in the names of the minors. The sale proceeds of the minors' shares will also be placed in a fixed deposit and shall be used for the education etc. of the minors. In the absence of any legal impediment, we find no reason to hold that the proposed sale is not for benefit of the minors. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order is set aside and liberty is granted to the appellant to sell the shares of minors, in accordance with law. The appellant is, however, directed FAO NO.186 OF 2012 4 to ensure that the sale proceeds and the amount, referred to in the family settlement, are used for the benefit of minors. In case any other property is purchased from the sale proceeds, the names of the minors shall be, duly reflected, in the documents of title. ( RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE ( REKHA MITTAL ) 26.2.2013 JUDGE vk