IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3993 of 2008(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2008 IN IA. 2057 /2007 IN MHOP.195/2005 of 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. RAJAGOPAL,S/O.KUMARAN,KODAPPULLY HOUSE NATTIKA VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RADHA,D/O.KUMARAN, DO...DO....DO... BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT: ------------- LEELA,W/O.VENUGOPALAN, KODAPULLY HOUSE, NATTIKA VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 3993 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 4thday of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur, in IA 2057/07 in MHOP 195/05. 2. The respondent herein is the petitioner in MHOP 195/05. She seeks an order for appointing her as the guardian of mentally ill husband, namely Sri. Venugoplan. In Para. 11 of the petition it is averred that though the property is having an extent of 34 cents, it is not giving any yield and the coconut trees standing therein are not properly yielding. Further, the building which is situated therein is leaking and it is in a very dilapidated condition, which will cause danger to health. Therefore she sought for appointment of her as the guardian and for sale of the property. It is opposed by the respondents. The application for issuance of a Commission is only to find out whether the averments in Para. 11 of the petition is true, whether the building situated in the property is sufficiently strong and the trees standing therein are giving good yield and what is the approximate estimate of the income that is derivable from the WPC NO 3993/08 2 property are all relevant materials, which will go into the root of the question regarding the permission to be granted for sale of the property. It is only with that in mind, the application has been filed. The court below did not consider it correctly and though it is for ascertaining the market value of the property and rejected the application. It is absolutely incorrect. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the court below to issue a Commission as prayed for and with a further direction to permit the petitioner in MHOP also to file a work memo regarding the details, which she wants to be noted by the Commissioner. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 3993/08 3