HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No. 402 OF 2009. Dated 8th December, 2009 BETWEEN Dasari Satyanarayana ….Appellant and Nil. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No. 402 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) This appeal at the instance of the father of the ward is ﬁled against the order dated 01.12.2008 passed in OP.No. 496 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the 1 st Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rejecting the request of the appellant to sell the property gifted to the ward. In brief the facts are: the appellant herein is the father and natural guardian of the minor, namely, Kum. Dasari Kalpana Devi. He and his mother gifted the suit schedule property to the said minor vide registered gift dated 4.8.2004 with a view to make an asset in her favour and fetch income for her studies etc. The said minor is now studying S.S.C and she intends to continue her further studies in a good college. Hence, to meet her educational expenses, the property is required to be sold. As such, the appellant ﬁled OP.No. 496 of 2008 seeking necessary permission to sell the suit schedule property. During the course of enquiry before the Court below, the appellant was examined as P.W.1, prospective purchaser as P.W.3 and a third party as P.W.2. On a consideration of the evidence and material brought on record, the Court below rejected the request of the appellant, observing that the proposed sale of the suit schedule property is not at all in the interest and for the beneﬁt of the minor and it will cause any amount of hardship to the minor in future course of her life. It was further observed that the proposed sale of the property gifted to the minor is only a rouse to have orders from the Court for the reasons best known to the appellant . The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that inasmuch as the minor intends to continue further studies, the appellant has to meet her educational expenses and therefore the suit schedule property is required to be sold. It is further submitted that the appellant is having Ac.1.00 of land on his own and there is no apprehension or misleading and that the entire sale proceedings would be invested in a nationalized bank and it will fetch substantial income to meet the educational expenses of the ward. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and material brought on record, the only question that arises for consideration is—whether the appellant is entitled to permission to sell the suit schedule property gifted to the ward. There is no dispute with regard to the recitals of the suit schedule property and gifting of the same to the minor by the appellant and his mother for the purpose of fetching an asset in her favour and yielding good income to meet her educational expenses etc. When the appellant intends to sell the suit schedule property to meet the educational expenses of the ward, the Court below did not ﬁnd favour with the request of the appellant. During the course of enquiry before the Court below, the appellant did not ﬁle a copy of the agreement of sale to substantiate the proposed sale of the property, except examining the prospective purchaser. The Court below observed that there is no material to substantiate as to whether the third party/prospective purchaser is capable of purchase the suit schedule property. Merely because the property is given to the minor and the same is required to be sold for the purpose of educational expenses of the minor cannot be accepted as a ground as long as the appellant being her father and take carer. In those circumstances, the Court below rightly rejected the request of the appellant. However, it is pertinent to observe that the entire sale proceeds would be invested in a nationalized bank and they will fetch a substantial amount, which will be more than the income derived from the agricultural income. Having regard to the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate the proposed sale, we deem it appropriate that the appellant should be given further opportunity to produce necessary evidence and material to substantiate his request for sale of the suit schedule property. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 1.12.2008 passed in OP. No. 496 of 2008 and remanding the matter to the Court below for consideration afresh. The appellant shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate his request for the sale of the suit schedule property. No order as to costs. ---------------------- ----------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD DATED 8T H DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.