IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 41 of 2008() -------------------- OP(G&W).7/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. MRS.AMMINI KOSHY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.LATE MR.KOSHY BABU,KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHUA MURI,EDATHUA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MR.PRASANTH JACOB KOSHY, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.LATE MR.KOSHY BABU,KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE EDATHUA MURI,EDATHUA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. MR.PRAVEEN KOSHY, AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.LATE MR.KOSHY BABU,KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE EDATHUA MURI,EDATHUA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- NIL. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.(G & W) No. 41 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellants are the legal heirs of one Koshy Babu. Even though it is stated in the application filed before the trial court that first petitioner, who is the mother and natural guardian of 2nd and third petitioners, should be appointed as the guardian and she should be allowed to dispose of the property of the minor's share in the property. In the prayer portion, it was only requested for permission to sell the property and there was no prayer for appointing herself as the guardian. No declaration was filed along with the application as provided under section 10 (3) of the Guardian and Wards Act. From the appeal memorandum, it is clear that the property agreed to be sold is only part of an undivided share belonging to Koshy Babu. It is submitted that the entire property is agreed to be sold by all the co-owners and one brother of Koshy Babu, namely, Koshy Mathew has also filed an application before this court to that effect. There is no consent from the other co-owners. It is true that declaration under section 10 (3) was filed M.F.A.(G & W) No. 41/2008 2 before this court, but, there is no specific application for appointing the petitioner as the guardian under section 7 before the court below. It is true that the valuation certificate is produced before this court. It shows that true value of the property is reflected in the proposed agreement for sale. Since the application itself was defective, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. However, petitioner is allowed to file a fresh application before the court below. If an application as required under law is filed, it should be disposed of untrammelled by the observations in the impugned order as expeditiously as possible. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa M.F.A.(G & W) No. 41/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.F.A.(G & W) No.41 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:4th April, 2008