IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28322 of 2008(V) -------------------------- OP(GW).44/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- JAYAMMA THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMASKUTTY JOSEPH, PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE, VALADY MURI NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT: --------------- SCARIA @ JOSEPH, PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE VALADY MURI, NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 28322 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The writ petitioner who is the wife of one Thomaskutty Joseph committed suicide on 08.02.2007 leaving the writ petitioner and the three minor children and huge debts behind him. In order to discharge the huge liabilities incurred by deceased Thomaskutty Joseph, the petitioner filed O.P. (G&W) No. 44 of 2007 before the District Court, Kottayam praying for an order appointing her as the guardian of the minor children and the property. As per Ext. P2 order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the District Judge, Kottayam, the said petition was allowed as follows on the following lines:- “1. The petitioner is appointed as the guardian of the person and petition schedule properties of minors Jithin, Justin and Jackson. 2. The petitioner is allowed to sell petition schedule item No.2 property and the building therein for a value not less than Rs.35,00,000/- and clear all the liabilities due to the deceased Thomaskutty Jospeh and deposit the balance amount in the name of the minors equally in a nationalised bank till they attain majority. 3. The petitioner shall produce a draft sale deed for the approval of this court before the sale is effected. W.P.(C) NO. 28322/2008 : 2: 4. The petitioner shall furnish security for twice the amount of value of the property as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules under the Guardians and wards Act. 5. The petitioner shall produce the bank documents after clearing the loan accounts before this Court.” Since the proposed buyer backed out from the deal, the petitioner was constrained to explore the possibilities of discharging the liabilities of the husband by finding out other buyers. Ultimately, she moved the District Court again by filing I.A. No. 1233 of 2008 in the above O.P. Ext.P3 is that application. As per Ext.P5 order dated 07.08.2008, the District Court permitted her to sell the plaint schedule item No.2 property for not less than 23 lakhs instead of Rs.35 lakhs. The petitioner thereafter produced Ext.P6 draft sale deed before the court for approval. The petitioner claims to have furnished a security bond for a sum of Rs.46 lakhs. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the period of agreement for sale expired on 25.09.2008 and the proposed buyer is about to leave abroad, the court below has not approved Ext.P6 draft sale deed without which the petitioner is unable to have the conveyance executed W.P.(C) NO. 28322/2008 : 3: and registered and discharge the liabilities of her husband. The petitioner would allege that the reason for the court below for not approving Ext.P6 draft sale deed was the failure to furnish security as provided under the Rule 6 framed by the High Court under the Guardian and Wards Act and that the form of security can only be any one of the 7 modes enumerated under Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 of the said rule. According to the petitioner, there is no such requirement under the Guardian and Wards Act or the rules framed thereunder requiring furnishing of security with respect to the sale of the properties ordered by the courts and furnishing of security by the guardian as contemplated under Rule 7 is only with regard to the properties which may be dealt with by the guardian and also with regard to the income therefrom and not the properties which have been ordered to be sold by the court. 2. There is some force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may move the court below with a specific request for approval of Ext.P6 draft sale deed on or before 30.09.2008. In case such a petition is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day W.P.(C) NO. 28322/2008 : 4: on which it is filed by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to execute the final conveyance in terms of Ext.P2 final order dated 06.09.2007 as modified by Ext.P5 order dated 07.08.2008. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) NO. 28322/2008 : 5: V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv